Lawyers for an armed robber are preparing to take his case to Bermuda's final court of appeal, the Privy Council in London, in a bid to overturn his conviction.

And Victoria Pearman, the lawyer for Michael Eugene Dillas, said she was considering setting a legal precedent by going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, if she did not get a successful result in London.

It is believed that no other case from Bermuda has been tested at the European Court.

Dillas, 33, and an accomplice in the April, 1997 heist at the Bank of Bermuda in Somerset, lost their appeal against conviction at the Court of Appeal in Hamilton in November.

Dillas, accused of watching bikes outside while the bank was being robbed of $37,500 by three other men, was imprisoned for 18 years.

Rupert Elroy Archibald, 38, who was imprisoned for 30 years, also lost his appeal against conviction and sentence.

Miss Pearman said the Appeal Court judges, Sir James Astwood, Sir Derek Cons and Philip Clough, failed to deal with Dillas' argument that he had no knowledge that a firearm was being used in the robbery.

The court heard Dillas fled with Archibald and two other robbers, Yusef Ameerbakka DeSilva and a man named as Travis Dill, in a boat and was in Dill's house with other gang members the morning the robbery was committed. There was no evidence, however, that he saw a gun which was produced in the house.

In a written judgment, Mr. Justice Cons said: "When one looks as a whole at the evidence and in the absence of anything to suggest to the contrary, we find it impossible to accept that Dillas may not have known; in particular, he was at Dill's house on the morning a gun was handed by Archibald to DeSilva.'' Dillas to appeal But Miss Pearman told The Royal Gazette : "As far as I'm concerned, the Court of Appeal did not deal with the legal questions that we raised. That was serious law and it screams out to go to the Privy Council to be determined.

"Michael Dillas was convicted of armed robbery. The evidence was that Dillas was outside watching the bikes.

"There was no direct evidence that he knew what was going on in the bank.

What the jury below (at the Supreme Court) and the Court of Appeal are saying is that we can infer that if people go into a bank in that manner that they were going in to rob it.

"He must have known, therefore he was part of an armed robbery. Even if that is correct, it can't possibly follow that because he knew they were going to rob the bank that he knew they were using a gun.

"There was not a shred of evidence that Michael Dillas had any knowledge that guns were to be used, but he was convicted for that gun offence.

"Clearly if the Crown were to convict him of using a firearm they would have to prove that he knew there was a firearm to be used and there's no evidence of that at all.

"We were very disappointed by that fact that he was given the mandatory sentence for a firearms offence when there is not a shred of evidence that he knew about the firearms offence.

"The Privy Council is thought to be the last chance. You can't go any further, but I haven't made up my mind about the European Court of Human Rights.

"I don't think any attorney in Bermuda has ever used that before. If you are dissatisfied, you have that right and there is some scope at the European Court.'' No date has been set for the Privy Council hearing. Papers have been filed with the Supreme Court, but it is understood they have to be submitted directly to London.