Man, two kids in home targeted by armed trio in home invasion
The home on Ardennes Ave at Edmonson Park was targeted at about 1.45am on Monday.
Police say the three armed men forced their way into the home, then threatened and assaulted a 48-year-old man and a 12-year-old boy.
'An 11-year-old boy was also inside the house at the time … The two children were uninjured,' NSW Police said in a statement.
The intruders stole several items, including jewellery, and fled in an unknown vehicle.
The 48-year-old man was treated at the scene by paramedics for facial injuries. The two children were not physically injured.
Police have set up a crime scene at the house.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
25 minutes ago
- ABC News
'Terrified' young supermarket worker allegedly assaulted by Uber driver.
The ABC has obtained confronting footage appearing to show a young female supermarket worker being kicked to the ground by an older male ride-share driver, in an alleged assault.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Defence lawyer accuses retired police officer of 'playing cop' before alleged Geraldton axe attack
The lawyer for two men accused of attacking a retired police officer with an axe in country Western Australia has questioned the former officer's credibility and accused him of "playing cop". Jack Seelander and Justin Troy Ernest Little allegedly assaulted former WA police sergeant Adrian Barker during a confrontation in Geraldton in March 2024. The pair faced trial over three days in the Geraldton Magistrates Court this week. The court heard Mr Barker was returning to his home in Wandina around 3am on March 17, 2024 when he passed a group of eight Aboriginal boys and men. Under cross-examination by defence lawyer Lauren Roycroft, Mr Barker admitted he thought the group would "be trouble". Mr Barker said once in his Wandina home, he sat near his front door, which was slightly ajar behind a locked flyscreen. He initially said it was left open for the breeze, but later Mr Barker admitted it was because he thought the group would attempt to break into nearby houses. Ms Roycroft put it to Mr Barker that he heard "a barely audible click", saw figures running away, then followed and confronted them. However, Mr Barker said he confronted members of the group, including Mr Seelander and Mr Little, after they attempted to break into his house. The confrontation saw Mr Barker allegedly hit Mr Little in the back of the head, knocking him to the ground. After initially running away, the court heard members of the group attacked Mr Barker, with Mr Little allegedly hitting him in the side of the face with an axe before fleeing the scene. In his closing statement on Wednesday, police prosecutor Sergeant Thomas Potts said the group had "fairly laid into Barker with a pick to the back" without being provoked. Sergeant Potts said Mr Barker "pre-emptively" struck Mr Little due to his path to flee being blocked by other members of the group. He said Mr Barker's decision to confront the group was honed by his 15 years of experience as a WA police officer. But the defence questioned Mr Barker's conduct, arguing he had pre-emptively formed "a negative view" of the group without cause. "There is a wealth of evidence that Mr Barker was the aggressor," Ms Roycroft told the court. She pointed to Mr Barker's inconsistent accounts of the incident, and his conduct immediately after the attack, as detrimental to his credibility as a witness. The court was told that after the incident, Mr Barker got into his car, pursued a car carrying a group of Aboriginal people unconnected to the attack at speed, flashed his headlights, pulled them over, and interrogated them at the side of the road. When the car's occupants asked if he was a police officer, Mr Barker answered "yep". Magistrate Matthew Walton reserved his decision, telling the court the matters were difficult, with "complexities often forgotten" in closing statements. He agreed that Mr Barker was "getting brutalised" by people in the group. The matter will return to court next month for the verdict.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Questions raised after ATO wiped $1m bill from Paul Keating's company
The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is under pressure to explain why it wrote off almost $1 million in interest and late penalties owed by one of Paul Keating's companies. An ABC Four Corners investigation has revealed that over a decade ago the ATO wrote off the debt in 2015 after years of negotiations. The debt was owed by one of Paul Keating's companies but wiped after negotiations with the former prime minister and his financial advisers. There is no suggestion of wrongdoing by Mr Keating or his advisers. Instead, the focus of the investigation is on why the ATO took the steps it did, given the fact that for most taxpayers formally challenging such a decision would require them to contest the matter in the Federal Court. However, the ABC reports in this instance, a payment notice was cancelled after a negotiation, raising questions about how the ATO chose to handle the matter. At the time, the Liberal Government was led by Tony Abbott and the Treasurer was Joe Hockey. There's no suggestion however that the Abbott Government was briefed on the decision to wipe the tax cut given the sensitivities around privacy and the ATO. The ATO and Mr Keating's office have been contacted for comment. The ABC's report states that the investigation raises 'questions about a lack of transparency in how the tax office conducts confidential settlements.' According to the ABC, an interest and penalties bill was issued after the ATO discovered in 2012 that Mr Keating's company, Brenlex Pty Ltd, had not reported profits from an earlier share sale. After Mr Keating was audited by the ATO in 2010 an agreement was struck according to the ABC for Mr Keating to settle tax liabilities of more than $3 million involving another of his companies, Verenna Pty Ltd. According to the ABC, Mr Keating was questioned about his other companies, including Brenlex, and his advisers confirmed it had paid a significant amount of tax relating to the sale of shares and was up to date with its tax liabilities. However, two years later the ATO discovered in 2012 that Paul Keating's company had not reported profits from a 2004 share sale. While Brenlex agreed to pay the tax debt, the ATO demanded the company pay more than $600,000 in interest and penalties which had accrued in the years since Mr Keating sold the shares. Mr Keating's advisers asked the ATO to write off this debt entirely via an ATO rule known as a 'commissioner's discretion'. The ATO commissioner at the time was Chris Jordan AO, who was appointed as the 12th Commissioner of Taxation on 1 January 2013. Mr Jordan led the ATO during the tumultuous pandemic period and during scrutiny of the ATO's role in the PwC tax leak scandal. does not suggest he was involved or aware of the decision to cancel the debt. According to the ABC, the argument over the tax debt went back and forth until the debt had grown to $904,000, at which point the ATO sent a formal notice to not waive the interest and penalties charge. 'Your request has been fully considered and it has been decided that on this occasion the circumstances detailed do not warrant remission of the GIC,' the notice said according to the ABC. 'There is a clear acknowledgment that the Company should have accounted for the disposal of shares in the relevant financial years returns and did not.' In 2015, Mr Keating's advisers became involved in the correspondence arguing the ATO should waive the bill because it was an honest mistake. As a result, 'the lodgement and payment of the Company returns were overlooked' but the tax office said 'This is not a valid justification'. In July 2015, 'a last-ditch letter from Brenlex was sent to the ATO requesting a meeting' Ten days later, the tax office sent a four-line email writing off the almost $1 million debt. 'I am able to confirm that the GIC and Late Lodgement Penalties … have been remitted in full,' the email said. 'Consequently the balance of the account has been reduced to nil and the amount payable as stated in the Creditors Statutory Demand is no longer owed.' Accounting experts have told the ABC that such negotiations are unfair because the only recourse available to taxpayers to challenge this kind of decision was an appeal to the Federal Court. This is a 'lengthy and complex process that is out of reach of most taxpayers'. The ATO's own website states 'Taxpayers should be aware that remission requests are carefully assessed to ensure a level playing field for those taxpayers who pay on time.' In a statement, the ABC told Four Corners that 'inadvertently overlooking' the need to pay tax was generally not valid grounds on which to cancel GIC. 'However, there may be instances where GIC is remitted when a taxpayer inadvertently overlooks the requirement to lodge a form or make a payment, depending on the individual circumstances of the taxpayer,' the ATO said.
