Being charged with a criminal offence can be extremely distressing, especially if it is your first offence.
However, when it comes to defending yourself in court, it’s important to know what the law says about the charges.
Section 111 of the Crimes Act 1900 deals with the offence of “entering a dwelling house with the intention to commit a serious indictable offence.”
This is different to the offence of “break and enter,” as it does not involve breaking into a house.
Rather, this section deals with cases where you simply enter a residence without the resident’s permission, for example, through an open gate, window or door.
To be found guilty under this section, the prosecution must also prove that you had the intention to commit a “serious indictable offence” within that residence.
A “serious indictable offence” is any offence which carries a term of imprisonment of five years or more, such as assault or larceny.
If you are found guilty of “entering a dwelling-house,” the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
If the prosecution proves that you committed the offence in “circumstances of aggravation,” the maximum penalty is 14 years’ imprisonment.
You may also face harsher penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment if it is proved that you committed the offence in “circumstances of special aggravation,” which include:
While these penalties are obviously very harsh, it’s important to bear in mind that they are maximums, which means that they will only apply in the most serious cases.
With the help of our highly-experienced criminal defence team, you can avoid these harsh penalties by fighting the charges in court.
If you are going to court for Enter Dwelling House, call Sydney Criminal Lawyers 24/7 on (02) 9261 8881 to arrange a free first conference with an experienced defence lawyer who will advise you of your options and the best way forward, and fight to secure the optimal outcome.
Read on for more information.
Our client is a 21-year-old man who lives in Blacktown.
He was charged with aggravated break, enter and steal motor vehicle, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
It was alleged that with another man, he broke into an underground carpark in a unit complex, then broke into a Mercedes Benz car and drove it out of the carpark.
There were multiple CCTV cameras inside the carpark depicting both our client and his co-accused.
Our client has suffered from drug dependence from the age of 15 years.
He has a lengthy criminal record in both the Children’s and adult courts, largely consisting of dishonesty and property offences, and has served time in prison.
He was on parole at the time for 23 previous offences, and had relapsed into drug use, as his co-accused had done.
Our defence team nevertheless successfully applied for bail.
During the bail application, lengthy submissions were made regarding the fact the prosecution could not establish the essential element of “break” – as there was no evidence about how he accessed the underground carpark.
Our client’s co-accused, who was at least equally complicit in the offence and had in fact driven the motor vehicle, was represented by another criminal defence lawyer who did not make a bail application for her client. We were told that the reason for that decision was that his lawyer felt it was inevitable her client would receive a prison sentence, and that a bail application was therefore futile.
After intense negotiations, we convinced the prosecution to withdraw the charge of aggravated break, enter and steal. Due to our firm’s efforts, the prosecution also withdrew this charge for our client’s co-accused.
Upon withdrawal, our client and his co-accused pleaded guilty to steal motor vehicle and break out in company.
Our client’s case then proceeded to a sentence hearing during which our senior associate made lengthy submissions in mitigation.
Significantly, in the lead-up to the sentencing hearing we directed our client to obtain full time employment and undertake drug rehabilitation, which he did to his great credit.
In the result, and despite the fact our client was at least equally complicit with his co-accused and had a far more substantial criminal history, our client was given an intensive correction order (which means he did not serve any more prison time) while his co-accused was sentenced to 22 months in full time custody.
During the sentencing, her Honour made clear that our client would not have been allowed to remain at liberty if he were not gainfully employed and did not undertake rehabilitation.
Our client is thriving in his job and his life.
One of our Senior Lawyers obtained a section 10 (no conviction) for a highly-publicised ‘aggravated break, enter and steal’ case heard at the Downing Centre District Court.
After a night out with some friends, our client, a 19-year-old man, was hanging out outside a clothing store with three other friends.
He leant against the door to the store, which incidentally opened as staff had forgotten to engage the security locks on the door to the shop.
Our client, along with two co-accused, then entered the shop and stole a number of items of clothing valued at around $1000.
Members of the public observed them leaving the store and reported the incident to police, who located the group a short time later in an alleyway along with the stolen clothing.
Our client was charged with ‘aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence,’ which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
Statistics published by the Judicial Commission show that 65% of people charged with this offence in higher courts receive a sentence of imprisonment.
Undeterred by this, our senior lawyer worked tirelessly to obtain the best result for our client.
Following the break and enter, our client was held hostage in the Sydney siege late last year.
Understandably, this affected his mental health – however it also was a test of character for our client, who was commended for his ‘bravery and maturity’ during the ordeal.
Our senior lawyer was able to obtain a psychologist’s report to support our client’s case and prepared submissions which emphasised the appropriateness of a lenient penalty.
After lengthy verbal submissions on the sentencing date, the judge was ultimately persuaded to impose a ‘section 10 good behaviour bond’ despite the seriousness of the charge. This means that our client escapes a criminal record, which would have had a detrimental impact on his life and future.
The Judicial Commission statistics indicate that less than 1% of ‘aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence’ cases dealt with in the higher courts over the past 7 years were finalised by way of a section 10 good behaviour bond.
The DPP has withdrawn all proceedings against our 27 year old client from Glebe who was charged with several offences including Specially Aggravated Break, Enter and Commit Serious Indictable Offence.
The charges arose from a home invasion that occurred in Guildford in December 2011. It was alleged that our client and 3 other co-accused broke into the home, damaged property and seriously assaulted and injured the occupant.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® has been fighting for the withdrawal of our client's charges since the start of the case.
Two of the other co-accused pleaded 'guilty' earlier in the proceedings and were given lengthy prison sentences. They were represented by other lawyers.
The third co-accused maintains a plea of 'not guilty' and faces a lengthy and expensive District Court trial.
Only our client's proceedings were dropped.
The Magistrate in Central Local Court granted bail to our client who allegedly engaged in three separate offences of aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence and intentionally or recklessly destroy / damage property in the Lindfield area in May and June 2013.
Bail was granted despite the Magistrate finding that the police case is very strong because the offences are captured by CCTV footage which depicts our client and the distinctive clothes allegedly worn by our client during the offences were found at his home.
It was a difficult bail application because our client has previous convictions for drug supply and drug possession, and there was a 'presumption against bail' for the current offences.
In Downing Centre District Court, our 29 year old Brighton-Le-Sands client was given a 'suspended sentence' for aggravated break, enter and steal upon a two-storey house in Killara, where he and another person broke into the home and stole a large amount of jewelry and other items.
Our client undertook extensive counselling to address the underlying cause of his offending, and Sydney Criminal Lawyers® was then able to convince the Presiding Judge not to impose a full-time custodial sentence.
In Campbelltown Local Court, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® successfully obtained bail for a 23 year old 'repeat offender' who was advised by his former solicitors and barrister that he had no chance of getting bail.
The man has several previous convictions for robbery, larceny, drugs and break & enter offences.
Most significantly, he was already on strict conditional bail including a night-time curfew for 'aggravated break, enter & steal' at the time of his present charges.
His present charges involve him allegedly 'break & entering' a home, stealing credit cards and using those cards shortly thereafter to make purchases at 2 nearby petrol stations and a convenience store, at a time when he was supposed to be home for his curfew.
According to the police 'facts', his use of the stolen cards is captured on CCTV footage and he had was in possession of receipts from the purchases when arrested.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained bail despite all of those factors.
Sydney Criminal Lawyers® obtained a 'Section 10' (no criminal record) in Downing Centre Court for our 30 year old client who was initially charged with Aggravated Break & Enter with Intent to Commit an Indictable Offence.
The case involved our client and another man (the 'co-accused') breaking and entering into an apartment in Woolloomooloo with intent to assault the occupant.
After intense negotiations, the DPP dropped the charge and replaced it with the minor charge of 'Enter Inclosed Lands' (trespass).
Our client pleaded guilty to that charge and no conviction was recorded against him.
Our client's co-accused is represented by other criminal lawyers who have not had their client's case withdrawn or reduced.
That man now faces a protracted and expensive District Court Trial and the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence.
After several months of intense negotiations, Sydney Criminal Lawyers® persuaded the DPP to withdraw all 'break and enter' charges against our 30 year old Darlinghurst client.
The case involved our client allegedly breaking into a Woolloomooloo apartment with intent to steal whilst occupants were present.
The charges against our client's co-accused are proceeding to trial. That person is represented by other criminal defence lawyers.
