A Sandys teenager was jailed for two years yesterday for his role in a December 2025 break-in.

Tajae Browne-Dill, 19, was originally charged with aggravated burglary, but pleaded guilty to the lesser offence of “simple” burglary in the Supreme Court.

Puisne Judge Juan Wolffe told Browne-Dill he was lucky that no one had been home when he and others broke into a Sandys residence, one wielding a baseball bat.

He said: “It’s really unfortunate when this court has to deal with young males who otherwise have very good upbringings, who are supported by the love of family members, who don’t want for anything but still commit offences.

“It almost seems as if the draw that’s being created by other people who will do them harm is far stronger than the love which their parents have for them.”

Mr Justice Wolffe sentenced Browne-Dill to two years behind bars, to be followed immediately by two years of probation, and further ordered him to pay $2,800 in restitution, urging the defendant to consider the consequences of criminal activity.

He said: “You may find yourself constantly dressed in orange, and I have seen that for many young men who have chosen a life of crime — or you can end up dead.

“I don’t want to sound like I am fear mongering but that is what happens.”

The court heard that the complainant was awoken by the sound of two loud bangs outside at about 12.30am on December 15, 2025.

When he looked out into the driveway, he saw four unknown men. He shouted at the men, causing three to flee behind a hedge while the fourth paced up and down the driveway until he was called away by the others.

The next day, the complainant noticed damage to the door of an apartment on the property.

On December 18, the complainant received a call stating that someone had broken into his home. When he returned, he noticed damage to the front door, while the interior of the house appeared to have been ransacked.

It was found that two ice cream containers filled with $1,300 in coins had been taken and a desktop computer had been damaged.

The court heard that Browne-Dill’s guilty plea related only to the December 18 burglary.

Taneka King, for the Crown, called for a sentence of between 18 months and two years, noting that while he was young and pleaded guilty to the burglary, he did have previous convictions.

She suggested in the circumstances that any time in custody be followed by a period of probation.

Marc Daniels, for Browne-Dill, said his client was extremely remorseful and was willing to pay restitution to the complainant.

Addressing the court, Browne-Dill said: “I would like to apologise to my family, the victim and the victim’s family for the damage and harm that I caused them.”

He said that he should have been a leader rather than a follower but he took full responsibility for his actions.

Browne-Dill said: “I wasn’t thinking about what I was doing. I was just following what other people were doing.”

He added that he intended to use his time in custody to better himself and that he hoped to further his education.

Asked by Mr Justice Wolffe why he didn’t leave when it became obvious what the others were doing, the defendant said that he had given one of them a ride and did not want to leave him.

The judge responded: “Have any of those three guys come to visit you while you have been locked up since April? Have any of those guys put anything on your canteen? Have any of them apologised to you?”

Mr Justice Wolffe said Browne-Dill had committed the offence despite having a roof over his head, food in his stomach and a family who loved and supported him.

He added: “Now you are going to spend the next two years or so in Westgate, dressed in orange.”

Mr Justice Wolffe sentenced Browne-Dill to two years in prison, with time served since April taken into account, to be followed by two years of probation, warning him that if he did not abide by the conditions of his probation he would find himself serving the full four years behind bars.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers