STATE OF TASMANIA v BLAISE CHRISTOPHER BADDELEY and
DANE RONALD PYKE
16 APRIL 2025
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE JAGO J
Mr Baddeley, you have been found guilty by unanimous jury verdict of one count of burglary, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated armed robbery and one count of stealing. You were found not guilty of the crimes of murder and unlawfully setting fire to property.
Mr Pyke, you have been found guilty by unanimous jury verdict of one count of burglary, one count of aggravated burglary, one count of stealing and one count of unlawfully setting fire to property. You were found not guilty of the crimes of aggravated armed robbery and murder.
The charges arose out of an incident which occurred on 23 January 2022, when you and two others – Mitchell Flanigan and Nikiya Coleman – travelled to a remote rural property at Chilcotts Road, Sprent, with the intention of stealing firearms from that property. It culminated with the property owner, Mr Jupp, being badly assaulted and ultimately killed. Whilst the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that either of you bear criminal responsibility for his death, the fact that such was the ultimate result of this planned criminal enterprise, emphasises why the theft of firearms from remote rural properties, in circumstances where violence is used, is very serious criminal behaviour, which must be heavily punished.
It is, of course, for me to find facts for sentence, consistent with the jury’s verdicts. I may only make findings adverse to either of you if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt they have been proved, and I may only make findings of fact in your favour if they are proved on the balance of probabilities. In so doing, it is important to recall that the jury verdicts of not guilty are not a finding that either of you are innocent. The verdicts reflect the fact the jury were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of all of the elements of the crime of murder or manslaughter, or in respect to Mr Baddeley the crime of unlawfully setting fire to property, and in respect to Mr Pyke the crime of aggravated armed robbery.
The relevant details of the incident, as I find them to be, are as follows. On 23 January 2022, probably around late morning, Mr Flanigan went to the home of Mr Pyke. At the time, Ms Coleman was living with Mr Pyke, having recently commenced a relationship with him. Mr Flanigan, Ms Coleman and Mr Pyke spent several hours together, smoking methyl amphetamine. I am satisfied that during this gathering, Mr Flanigan advised Mr Pyke of information he had, suggesting there were firearms located at Mr Jupp’s property at Chilcotts Road. Mr Pyke was desirous of obtaining a firearm because he wanted to use it to threaten some drug associates with whom he was having a feud. Mr Pyke was attracted to the idea of obtaining a particularly sinister firearm, and it seems Mr Flanigan had given him information that there was supposedly an AK 47 firearm at the property. Mr Pyke was keen to obtain it as he was of the view that it would present as a significant threat to the drug associates with whom he was feuding. It is an aggravating circumstance that the motivation for stealing the firearms was to use them for criminal purposes.
Mr Flanigan drove Mr Pyke’s car to the home of Mr Baddeley. Ms Coleman was with them. When they left the house, they had with them gloves and face coverings, which were intended to be used to hide identities because Mr Flanigan was aware that there were cameras located at the property. I find they also took with them a container of petrol to enable them to destroy evidence of them having been there if necessary. On route, Mr Baddeley was collected. I accept that Mr Baddeley may have shown some initial reluctance to be part of the plan, but within a short space of time, agreed to assist with breaking in and stealing firearms, in return for obtaining money or drugs. I am satisfied that from the point the group departed Mr Baddeley’s residence, they were all aware that they were going to Chilcotts Road to steal firearms, and there was a strong desire, particularly on Mr Pyke’s behalf, to ensure the endeavour was successful.
On the way to Chilcotts Road, I am satisfied that further methyl amphetamine was consumed, either during a stop at a cemetery at Don, or at the home of Phoebe Leicester in Ulverstone, or perhaps both, given the excessive drug use that all four participants were at that time involved in. It is unnecessary to make findings as to how the methyl amphetamine was ingested. I am satisfied the group stopped at Ms Leicester’s and that whilst there, Mr Flanigan obtained an angle grinder to assist in breaking into the property.
The group travelled to Chilcotts Road, and on route, all four participants donned the gloves and face coverings, and phones were also turned off, to ensure their identity and location were not readily detected. This was a planned and targeted break in of a remote rural property to steal firearms for sinister purposes. I cannot be satisfied that prior to arrival the group appreciated that Mr Jupp lived there. It matters little, however, because as I will detail, I am satisfied that before anyone exited the vehicle, at least Mr Pyke knew of Mr Jupp’s presence. There was ample opportunity to withdraw from the plan and avoid the tragic circumstances that ensued.
Upon arrival at the Chilcotts Road property, the gate was locked. Mr Pyke used the angle grinder to cut open the chain and lock on the gate. Mr Flanigan then reversed the vehicle into the property, to allow stolen property to be loaded into the boot and to facilitate a quick exit. The vehicle in which the four travelled was parked in front of a caravan and annexe structure. There was a car parked immediately adjacent to the caravan. Mr Jupp was standing outside his caravan, and Mr Pyke observed him there, before he exited the motor vehicle. Undeterred, Mr Pyke exited the vehicle and advanced immediately towards Mr Jupp’s van.
Mr Jupp returned to his caravan and shut and locked the sliding door. Mr Baddeley followed Mr Pyke out of the vehicle and as he did, he also saw Mr Jupp. Mr Baddeley followed Mr Pyke to the caravan. Mr Pyke forced entry to the caravan by smashing the front glass sliding door. Mr Jupp fled the caravan through a door at the opposite end, presumably in an endeavour to stay safe and flee the property to obtain assistance. I am satisfied that at this point, Mr Baddeley chased Mr Jupp as he fled the van and ran up the driveway. The only logical reason for doing so was because he wanted to ensure Mr Jupp could not get away and interrupt the plan to steal the firearms.
I am satisfied that Mr Baddeley caught Mr Jupp towards the top of the driveway area, not far from the gate. I am also satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that at this point, Mr Baddeley assaulted Mr Jupp. It is not possible to determine with any level of specificity the extent of the assault, but I am satisfied it went far beyond what Mr Baddelely described in his evidence in Court. Mr Baddeley said that all he did was tackle Mr Jupp to the ground and then loosely tie an extension cord, which was brought to him by Ms Coleman, around the feet of Mr Jupp. He said Mr Jupp was not injured when he left him. I reject this account. In my view, it is inconsistent with the DNA evidence, which clearly established that there was substantial blood pooling, consistent with Mr Jupp’s DNA, at the top of the driveway, not far from the gate. It is also inconsistent with the account given by Nikiya Coleman to police during her record of interview. In that record of interview, she said she saw Mr Jupp on the ground and said Mr Baddeley was “going nuts” and kicking and yelling at Mr Jupp. Mr Jupp was moaning and crying. She said that she assisted Mr Baddeley in tying Mr Jupp up, so that he could not run away and obtain assistance. I am satisfied that at the top of the driveway Mr Baddeley assaulted Mr Jupp by inflicting blunt force trauma generally to his body, leaving him injured, bloodied and in pain. He then, with the assistance of Coleman, tied him up by placing an extension cord around his neck and legs and dragged him to an area adjacent to an animal shelter, again consistent with the evidence of the forensic scientists as to a luminol positive trail leading from the top of the driveway to an area adjacent to an animal shelter. This area was not far from the entrance to the shipping container which housed the gun safe.
In determining the factual basis for sentencing and assessing the level of criminal responsibility Mr Baddeley bears for the crime of aggravated armed robbery, I warn myself, as I warned the jury, of the need for caution when assessing the account Ms Coleman gave to the police. Both Ms Coleman and Mr Flanigan were criminally concerned in the same crimes and therefore may have had an interest in minimising or deflecting their own responsibility for the crimes. However, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the account given by Ms Coleman to police during the record of interview as to what happened at the top of the driveway was the truth. It is consistent with the scientific evidence, and the manner in which she explained events to police during the record of interview presented as logical, honest and forthright. I am cognisant of the fact that when she gave evidence, she largely recanted what she had told police and her evidence was, to a significant degree, unfavourable to the prosecution. I am satisfied that the account she gave in Court was directed at trying to protect both defendants and was not a truthful account.
I am satisfied, therefore, that the violence Mr Baddeley inflicted upon Mr Jupp in the commission of the aggravated armed robbery was not insignificant. The violence was used to prevent Mr Jupp’s resistance to the plan to steal firearms, and that violence extended to Mr Jupp being quite badly hurt by the time he was dragged to the area of the animal shelter. Mr Jupp was left tied up, injured and vulnerable at the animal shelter, and whilst in that position, someone inflicted further serious violence upon him, which was ultimately causative of his death. Whilst I reiterate neither Mr Pyke or Mr Baddeley have been found criminally liable for Mr Jupp’s death, the fact the aggravated armed robbery rendered Mr Jupp vulnerable to further violence being inflicted upon him, and left him without any viable means to escape or protect himself, given he was tied up, makes this a very serious example of the crime of aggravated armed robbery.
Whilst Mr Baddeley was involved in chasing down and detaining Mr Jupp, I am satisfied Mr Pyke rummaged through the van looking for firearms and keys to a firearms safe. I am also satisfied that it was most likely at this time that Mr Pyke stole items from the van, including Mr Jupp’s mobile phone and a television. He then made his way to the shipping container and either he or Mr Flanigan used the angle grinder to gain entry to the container. Once in the container, there was a concerted effort, by both Mr Flanigan and Mr Pyke to break into the firearms safe. At some point during this, Mr Baddeley joined Mr Pyke in the shipping container and joined in the endeavour to gain entry to the firearms safe. Ultimately, entry was gained to the firearms safe, and a number of firearms were stolen. Based upon a certificate of evidence pursuant to s 158 of the Firearms Act, that was tendered during the trial, I am satisfied that at least three firearms were stolen. I note Mr Baddeley gave evidence of removing two firearms from the firearms safe, but I am satisfied it is likely Mr Jupp had more firearms in the safe than that, and there is no evidence that any firearms were subsequently located at the property. I will sentence on the basis that at least three firearms were stolen.
Following the theft, it was the defendant Pyke who took control and possession of the firearms. I have no doubt that he was indiscriminate about how he disposed of them and to whom. Those firearms have not been recovered, and it is a reasonable inference that they are now unlawfully in the community, most likely in the hands of people who will use them for nefarious purposes. At no stage has Mr Pyke provided police with information which might enable the firearms to be recovered. Community protection is an important consideration when sentencing those who steal firearms.
Prior to departure from the premises, there was various other items of property stolen and loaded into the vehicle. In addition to the firearms, a television, a mobile phone, a car battery, tools and a CCTV camera were also stolen. Some of this property was recovered, hidden at an address in Ulverstone.
Just prior to departure, Mr Pyke used fuel to set fire to the vehicle that was parked adjacent to the caravan. This vehicle belonged to Mr Jupp’s mother but was used by Mr Jupp. Mr Pyke did this, I am satisfied, in order to dispose of items that had been used by the four co-accused to carry out their criminal enterprise. When fire personnel subsequently attended, they also detected fuel within the caravan. I am satisfied that this fuel had been deliberately deposited there, most likely by Mr Pyke, with the intention that the caravan would also be set on fire for the purpose of destroying any evidence that may link the defendants to the property. Mr Pyke had cut his hand as he entered the caravan and, during his time in it, had been bleeding. I am satisfied Mr Pyke was aware of this and was hopeful that the fire he set in the motor vehicle would extend to the caravan and destroy any evidence of his presence in it.
Relevant to the objective seriousness of these crimes, I am satisfied that at some point, both Mr Pyke and Mr Baddeley were in close proximity to Mr Jupp and were aware that he was very badly injured prior to leaving the property. I reject the account given by each defendant that essentially, they knew nothing of the extent of the injuries that were inflicted upon Mr Jupp or how those injuries came about. In my assessment, the accounts given by the defendants of seeing nothing, hearing nothing and being largely oblivious to how the extensive injuries were inflicted upon Mr Jupp, are obvious lies.
The proposition that such a brutal and prolonged assault could take place in close proximity to where the defendants were in the open shipping container, completely unknown to them, tests credulity. Mr Baddeley said he came and went from the shipping container but saw or heard nothing. Mr Pyke said he washed his hands adjacent to where Mr Jupp was and saw only some very minor injuries on him. Their respective accounts are so implausible they can be rejected without anything more. Without hesitation, I reject the claims made by each defendant that they know nothing of the fatal injuries that were inflicted upon Mr Jupp. Whilst, of course, neither is to be sentenced for bearing any criminal responsibility for the death of Mr Jupp, I am satisfied that both defendants knew that Mr Jupp was being badly assaulted and did nothing to interfere with or prevent the violence. Moreover, I am satisfied that they knew, at least, that he was very badly injured when they departed the premises. They departed with no regard whatsoever for his well being. The act of stealing his mobile phone and the act of setting fire to the only vehicle at the premises, deprived Mr Jupp of the means to make contact with anyone and get help if, indeed, he was still physically able to do that. Most reasonable members of our community would find the defendants conduct morally reprehensible, and their moral culpability for these crimes is, in my view, exceptionally high .
Following the departure from the property, the vehicle was driven to Penguin. The main of the stolen items were left in the vehicle at Penguin, but the firearms were removed and taken back to Mr Pyke’s residence in East Devonport. The group travelled in a taxi to East Devonport dropping Mr Baddeley off on the way at a point near to his residence. Mr Pyke, Mr Flanigan and Ms Coleman returned to Mr Pyke’s residence. Later in the evening, Mr Flanigan returned to his home. The following morning, Mr Pyke and Ms Coleman were involved in moving the vehicle that had been driven out to Chilcotts Road from Penguin to Ulverstone, and then Mr Flanigan assisted in relocating the vehicle to Nell Crescent where some of the stolen property was left. Ultimately, the vehicle was returned to Mr Pyke’s home and cleaned, again I find, in an attempt to remove evidence.
Given what I have outlined, I sentence on the basis that Mr Pyke was a principal offender in respect to all crimes of which he has been found guilty. I sentence Mr Baddeley on the basis that he was a principal offender in respect to the crimes of burglary, aggravated armed robbery and stealing. In respect to the crime of aggravated burglary, which, of course, relates to the entry into the caravan, I sentence on the basis that criminal liability arises pursuant to s 4 of the Criminal Code. That is, the aggravated burglary was a probable consequence of the plan to commit the crimes of burglary and stealing. There was, from a very early point in time, a shared common intention to go to Chilcotts Road and steal firearms. It is obvious that entry to any building or structure, including ones which might be used for human habitation, would be pursued in order to find firearms, or keys which would enable entry to be gained to alternate buildings, or a firearms safe.
Turning to the personal circumstances of Mr Baddeley. He is now 35 years of age. He was born and raised in Western Australia. He had a relatively unremarkable childhood, although his father was a heavy consumer of alcohol. He lived with both parents until he was aged 12. His parents then separated and in time, his mother re-partnered. I am told Mr Baddeley’s stepfather operated a quarry. Mr Baddeley went to work for his stepfather and was introduced to illicit substances. From that point, he has had significant difficulties with illicit substance use. There have been occasional periods of abstinence, usually coinciding with employment, including some stints working in the mines in Western Australia, where drug testing was common, but overall, his employment has been relatively spasmodic and drug use has been a constant feature of Mr Baddeley’s life.
Mr Baddeley relocated to Tasmania in 2016 following his mother and stepfather’s move to Tasmania. Shortly after his arrival, he became involved with others who were also illicit drug users, and his drug use and criminal offending continued.
By way of prior recorded criminal history, in Western Australia he has prior convictions for driving offences, dishonesty offences, bail offences and an offence in September 2015 of possess an article with intent to cause fear.
His record of prior convictions in Tasmania commence in 2018. He has many prior convictions for driving offences, particularly involving alcohol and drugs. In 2020, he was sentenced to imprisonment for driving offences, including evade police, and some bail offences. He has several convictions under the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Bail Act. He has prior convictions for matters of dishonesty. His prior convictions for matters involving violence are less prominent. There is a matter of common assault in 2020, which appears to have been committed in a family violence context, and a further matter of common assault for which he was sentenced in 2023, but which occurred in 2021. There are several convictions for breaching a Family Violence Order.
Relevant to time spent in custody, in June 2023, Mr Baddeley was sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment for bail offences, common assault, ten counts of breach family violence order, and matters of dishonesty. That sentence expired on 24 December 2022. The sentence I impose should commence from that date.
As to Mr Pyke, he is 28 years of age. He, too, had a largely unremarkable childhood, growing up with the support of his family. He continues to receive the support of his family. It seems however, difficulties with his behaviour appeared from a young age and he began to associate with the wrong people. He commenced using illicit drugs from an early age and his use of such substances has characterised his adult life. His record of prior convictions is terrible, particularly for matters of dishonesty and violence. He was first before the youth courts for matters of dishonesty when he was aged 15.
By June 2013, he was made subject to a partially suspended detention order for numerous offences of dishonesty, breaching bail and matters of common assault, which were committed in 2011 and 2012, when he was aged 15 and 16. In 2014, he breached that order by reoffending, including by committing two aggravated assaults, both of which involved using a firearm to threaten people, and one common assault. That gave rise to a period of detention. In 2018, he was given a short, wholly suspended period of imprisonment for bail offences, drug offences and a matter of dishonesty. In November 2019, Mr Pyke was sentenced by this Court for the crime of aggravated robbery. Mr Pyke was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months. It is of note that the sentencing judge described the crime as follows:
“You, in company, committed a planned invasion of the home of another young man for a dishonest purpose in the course of which serious violence was inflicted.”
Obviously, that sentence did little to deter Mr Pyke, from again planning to invade the property of another, in company, for dishonest purposes, this time, the stealing of firearms.
In June 2023, the defendant Pyke was sentenced for the crime of causing grievous bodily harm. This crime occurred in August 2020, whilst he was an inmate at Risdon Prison. Mr Pyke attacked another prisoner and caused him significant harm. He left his victim with a lacerated spleen and substantial internal bleeding. For that matter, he was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment, commencing on 19 April 2022. Additionally, in January 2023, the defendant Pyke was sentenced to a period of 118 days imprisonment for bail offences, driving offences and drug offences. Therefore, since his remanded in custody on these matters, two years and 108 days of time served have already been allocated to other sentencing orders.
Because, in respect to each defendant, my sentence will come on top of other sentences they have already been serving, principals of totality are relevant. However, I do not see them as being of any real weight as this is very separate and distinct criminal offending.
I have regard to the sentences imposed on the other two co-accused. Mr Flanigan was found guilty of the crimes of burglary, aggravated burglary and aggravated armed robbery. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years. In my assessment, his record of prior convictions was not as bad as either of these two defendants. Whilst he had some prior convictions for matters of dishonesty, he had no prior convictions for crimes involving violence. His sentence was also discounted by 15% in anticipation of him giving evidence in the trial of these two defendants.
Ms Coleman was originally found guilty by a jury of the crimes of burglary, aggravated burglary, aggravated armed robbery, murder and unlawfully setting fire to property. The Court of Criminal Appeal quashed her convictions for murder and unlawfully setting fire to property, and re-sentenced her to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months. Her sentence was reduced by 30% in recognition of her promised co-operation with the authorities. Ms Coleman’s antecedents were very different to either of these two defendants. She was only 18 at the time of her involvement in these crimes. The Court of Criminal Appeal, in re-sentencing, also considered a letter Ms Coleman had provided in support of her appeal. Martin AJ, with whom Estcourt J and Marshall AJ agreed, said “The appellant’s letter is a genuine demonstration of insight into her offending and her contrition. It speaks highly of good prospects of rehabilitation”. Whilst I bear parity in mind, there is good reason to distinguish between the sentences imposed upon the co-offenders and the appropriate sentences to be imposed upon each of these defendants, including the respective roles played by each and the basis of criminal liability. Mr Baddeley is to be sentenced as a principal offender in respect to the crime of aggravated armed robbery. Mr Flanigan was sentenced as a participant in a common purpose where aggravated armed robbery was a probable consequence. Mr Pyke was the person who set the chain of events into action. Whilst the information about the firearms may have come from Mr Flanigan, it was Mr Pyke who wanted to go and steal them; it was Mr Pyke who first appreciated Mr Jupp was present, but nevertheless decided to continued with the plan to steal the firearms; it was Mr Pyke who first introduced violence to the scene when he smashed his way into the caravan, and it was Mr Pyke who presumably benefited from the theft of the firearms as he took them home.
What occurred involves very serious examples of each of the crimes committed. Overall, the defendants’ conduct was appalling and having had the benefit of seeing and hearing each of them give their evidence about the events of this day, I am firmly of the view that neither of them truly appreciates or understands just how dreadful their behaviour was. The attitude displayed was almost one of indifference. As I have noted, I find that both defendants lied about what they know of Mr Jupp’s death. This must have been a terribly frightening and horrific ordeal for Mr Jupp, and the thought of Mr Jupp suffering as he did, with no one having the decency to intervene, has understandably been a very difficult thing for his family to comprehend.
Mr Baddely, Mr Pyke in my assessment neither of you has displayed any genuine remorse or demonstrated contrition. That is strongly reflective of the need for considerable weight to be given to specific deterrence in the sentencing exercise. That, together with the requirement to recognise the very strong need for punishment, denunciation, vindication of the victim and general deterrence, means the only appropriate orders are substantial periods of imprisonment in respect to each of you.
I make the following orders. Mr Baddeley, you are convicted of all matters of which you have been found guilty. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years and six months, commencing 24 December 2022. The minimum period I think you should serve for these crimes is four years, and I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served that period.
Mr Pyke, you are convicted of all matters of which you have been found guilty. I impose one sentence. You are sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years and three months, commencing 18 April 2024. I order that you not be eligible for parole until you have served three years of that period of imprisonment.
I make a compensation order in favour of the Estate of Dean Jupp for an amount to be assessed.