BEN Hoffmann is paranoid.

The extent of his paranoia and its implications for his sentencing over the violent, bloody rampage he committed in June 2019 that left four men dead has been the subject of much debate in the Supreme Court this week — but as a simple statement of fact there can be no doubt.

In his own words to Justice John Burns on Wednesday, the 47-year-old mass murderer is “paranoid about the world”, a big call to be sure, but in Hoffmann’s case, not necessarily any exaggeration.

(The list so far includes, among other things, all manner of misfortunes supposedly inflicted upon his “girlfriend” and an alleged poisoning by the now deceased Michael Sisois, the purported reasons for which appeared to befuddle Mr Sisois at the time and still remain unclear.)

The subject of Hoffmann’s paranoia last Wednesday was a report he’d seen on the previous night’s ABC News that he wrongly believed had condemned him to “three consecutive life sentences”.

The report had said no such thing but Hoffmann appeared convinced the revelation was the product of a leak by prosecutors — “somebody said these things to the media” — who were trying to “trick” him by convincing him to plead guilty, a theory quickly put to bed by Justice Burns.

Those guilty pleas had, by then, been entered, which left no risk of prejudice to any jury and Hoffmann’s remarks were duly reported by the ABC and others.

However, it wasn’t only the prosecution team who were out to get him.

Another subject of Hoffmann’s paranoia had so far been kept from the jury and, by extension, the public, but it was certainly not lost on his (highly experienced) legal team led by Jon Tippett QC, with Peter Maley and Catherine Voumard assisting.

“I’m paranoid about my lawyers,” the now confessed killer told Justice Burns.

AT ABOUT 2am on June 4, 2019 Ben Hoffmann arrived on the doorstep of Mihalis Makrylos’s house, waking him up by “vigorously knocking on the door”.

“He claimed that he was poisoned,” Mr Makrylos would later tell jurors in Hoffmann’s trial on October 6 this year.

But what the jury didn’t hear was what had happened just before Mr Makrylos took the stand, when Hoffmann’s “major problems” with his legal representation first reared their head.

After Hoffmann interrupted proceedings earlier that morning, Justice Burns had hurriedly ushered the 15 men and women in the jury box out of the room before turning to the dock.

“Now, what is the problem?” he asked.

The problem, it seemed, was that Mr Tippett and his juniors were apparently refusing to take “pretty basic instructions” that “deal with something that’s very serious”.

“It’s something put to one of the witnesses that will be giving evidence,” a po-faced Hoffmann grumbled.

“It’s actually a guy that had — yeah, had given me a gun the day of the incident, pretty serious.”

Justice Burns explained that whatever the issue was, it was one that should properly be dealt with between counsel and client and agreed to take the latest in what would become many such adjournments.

“But may I say this, Mr Hoffmann, I have yet to see anything that indicates to me that your lawyers are not behaving in your best interests in this trial,” he said.

“You have a very experienced legal team and, I would suggest, much more experienced in the presentation of criminal trials than you yourself are, so that while I understand your concern, you really need to take these matters up with them and listen to their advice.”

BY THE following Monday, jurors were due to hear from Pascal Robaye, whose Winchester Defender 12-gauge shotgun had been stolen back in 1996 before finding its way into Hoffmann’s murderous hands more than a decade later on June 4, 2019.

(There is no suggestion Mr Robaye played any role in Hoffmann acquiring the weapon.)

But before that could happen, Hoffmann addressed Justice Burns again — he had another question.

“Can I sack my lawyers?” he asked.

Mr Tippett and his colleagues were “ignoring me” Hoffmann complained, “not listening to me” — “everyone is lying, covering up, not telling the truth”.

“You adjourned the case last Friday so I could spend all day with my lawyer,” he said.

“I spent 10 minutes with him, came in to spend the day with him, I don’t know what to think.

“At the moment with my lawyers it’s very hard, to say the least, at times I think they’re playing games with me, your honour.

“Without all the big words and everything — I’ve had to plead not guilty to get the truth out. Everyone is lying and covering up, sir.”

An ever unflappable Justice Burns explained to Hoffmann that while “of course, you may dispense with the services of your lawyers”, it would be folly to assume he would be granted an adjournment to find replacements.

“If you’re ultimately left in a position where you do not have lawyers, you will have to do your best to conduct the trial on your own, and let me assure you that that is a very difficult exercise,” he warned.

“I want to make it very, very clear to you — I will not be giving you time to find new lawyers unless you convince me that there was a legitimate reason to dispense with the services of your present legal team.

“So far, I have seen nothing which would indicate to me that there was any difficulty with the way they are conducting the trial.”

But Hoffmann would not be swayed and when lunchtime rolled around, Justice Burns agreed to have someone from NT Legal Aid (the funder of his defence) contact him to discuss the unlikely possibility of changing horses midstream.

Then the pressure cooker exploded.

DURING the lunch break, it emerged, Hoffmann had apparently outlined his concerns in a florid complaint to the Legal Aid Commission, which now proved too much for Mr Tippett to bear — the final straw had seemingly taken saddle astride the proverbial camel.

Before the jurors were able to resume their seats, the high profile silk told Justice Burns he had consulted with Mr Maley and Ms Voumard and “come to the conclusion that we are no longer capable of continuing to act for Mr Hoffmann”.

“Mr Hoffmann has suggested that we stand between him and a fair trial,” he said

“We reject outright that allegation as preposterous, outrageous, inappropriate — and we feel that, in the circumstances, we cannot continue to act.”

Mr Tippett said while he had chosen to overlook his client’s “misdirected” and “untrue” allegations up to this point, the contents of his complaint to Legal Aid “drive at the very heart of my and my legal team’s ethical responsibility to this court”.

“Now your honour, we have considered this matter very carefully, because this is a trial that has gone for some time and the issues in it are complex,” he said.

“We have, I can assure you, spent weekends and nights on this case and we feel that the attack upon us is not only inappropriate, it’s just untrue and we can’t stand by and allow attacks of that nature to be made.

”So, your honour, it doesn’t give me any pleasure, but we will be withdrawing from representing Mr Hoffmann in this case and we will be withdrawing as of now.”

For the first time in what had been an at times tense and hotly contested trial, Justice Burns appeared slightly rattled, and hastened to urge Mr Tippett to reconsider, noting Hoffmann had not actually sacked him as threatened.

“I’ve been around long enough to know that I have not heard both sides of the story in terms of what your client has said to me and I have deliberately not said anything other than to say that I have seen no indication that Mr Hoffmann’s legal team has done anything other than act in his best interests,” he said.

“It would be, in my view, a grave mistake on your part and those of your legal team to withdraw in circumstances where you have not had your instructions withdrawn by your client.”

As Justice Burns prepared to adjourn to allow Mr Tippett to consider his position, reality was now dawning on the man in the dock — Hoffmann was back-pedalling.

“I spoke to the lady before and she said I’ve just got to give her some — some of my notes in the morning and there’s a process that has to take place,” he said.

“Until then I was told that things should just — I think we go along with it until the process is done.”

But it was too late. The complaint Hoffmann had made amounted to “a withdrawal of instructions”, Mr Tippett said. “It can’t possibly be otherwise.”

Silence, all stand. This honourable court is now adjourned.

A SHORT time later and all parties are reassembled in Courtroom 2: Crisis averted.

A placated Mr Tippett has agreed to withdraw his application to sling his hook.

“But, your honour, I do contend that, in the circumstances, the application was not a grave error,” he said.

“(The complaint) was quite an affront.”

The news clearly came as a relief to Justice Burns, who described the about face as “the correct and honourable decision”. “All right, thank you. Now, we’ll bring the jury in,” he said.

“May it please the court,” said Crown Prosecutor Lloyd Babb SC, taking his feet for the first time in some time now. “I call officer Gino Robb.”

EVEN as four men lie dead, largely for no greater crime than being in the wrong place at the wrong time — in the mind of their killer, it’s Hoffmann himself who is the real victim.

Whether he’s laying the blame for his own unspeakable crimes at the feet of others through absurd conspiracy theories that make sense only in the deranged echo chamber of his own mind, or blaming his lawyers for not buying in to his delusions — there will be no justice for him.

In an interview with Royal Darwin Hospital psychiatrist, Rob Parker, on the morning after his killing spree that was played to the court, Hoffmann can be seen once again engaged in more hopeless contortions in an effort to weasel out of taking responsibility for his own actions.

“Yeah, I, I, look, I ah, I need support, I need to be able to talk to people (inaudible) to be able to explain to me, what I’ve endured and the rest of it,” he says.

“I’ve just been through a lot, like, I mean, and, and, and I f***ed, f***ed up to say the least.”

At one point, Hoffmann complains of having suffered “bad depression”, saying “it affects me to the point where I could only now buy bright clothes”.

“I bought a bright red car. Um, I like to buy nice white things, it cheered me up, you know what I mean?”

Later, he is heard whinging about the “intimidating, fearful, dull environment” of prison.

“I mean, I f***in’ hate jail,” he whines.

Now, as he stares down the barrel of three mandatory life sentences and more, Hoffmann won’t necessarily have to learn to like jail, but he’s definitely going to have to get used to it.

Maybe his maximum-security red, prison-issue tracksuit will cheer him up.

Ben Hoffmann has pleaded guilty to the deliberate murder of three men as well as the reckless manslaughter of another on June 4, 2019.

Hassan Baydoun, 33, Michael Sisois 57 and Rob Courtney 52 were all intentionally gunned down by Hoffmann during his mindless rampage. Nigel Hellings also lost his life at the end of Hoffmann’s shotgun. He was 75.

Hoffmann’s sentencing hearing will continue in the Supreme Court on a date to be fixed.