Darwin triple shotgun murderer Ben Hoffmann sacks his lawyers ahead of sentencing hearing

Darwin triple shotgun murderer Ben Hoffmann has finally carried out a longstanding threat to sack his lawyers and now faces the prospect of representing himself in a complex sentencing hearing next year.

UPDATE 1PM: MASS murderer Ben Hoffmann has told the NT Legal Aid Commission (NTLAC) he will not be able to represent himself after sacking his publicly funded legal team on Thursday.

A letter from Darwin triple murderer Ben Hoffmann to the NT Legal Aid Commission sacking his legal team. Picture: NT Courts & Tribunals

In a letter tendered to the Supreme Court, Hoffmann told NTLAC he was “officially sacking” Jon Tippett QC, Peter Maley and Catherine Voumard.

“I would also like you to know in doing so I would require further immediate legal representation as I am facing some very serious set of offences facing a life in prison sentence,” he wrote.

“I am writing to you today in good faith that you could change my grant of aid in doing so as soon as possible as I am in a crisis situation and unable to represent myself.”

EARLIER: DARWIN triple shotgun murderer Ben Hoffmann has finally carried out a longstanding threat to sack his lawyers and now faces the prospect of representing himself in a complex sentencing hearing next year.

Hoffmann had a tense relationship with publicly funded silk Jon Tippett QC and his juniors, Peter Maley and Catherine Voumard, throughout his trial before entering a last minute guilty plea earlier this month.

On Thursday, Hoffmann told Justice John Burns he and his legal team had been “arguing very badly, or fighting” and he was “in a crisis situation” after the NT Legal Aid Commission withdrew funding in light of his decision.

“I’ve no faith or confidence in the legal team I have and the trial is at a crucial time where I need professional expert assistance with the expert evidence part of the trial,” he said.

“I need an expert lawyer to be able to take over the case from now and there’d be a few reasons for that.”

In making the application to withdraw from the case, Mr Tippett said there were no grounds “whatsoever” for his former client’s decision and he and his colleagues had done their best under “difficult circumstances”.

Peter Maley and Jon Tippett QC outside the Supreme Court during Hoffmann’s trial. Picture: Julianne Osborne

“In circumstances where witnesses have been called and so on and cross examined, it gives me no pleasure to make the application,” he said.

“We have sufficient instructions and we are in a position to proceed should your honour refuse leave.

“But in the circumstances, bearing in mind some of the cases I’ve looked at, really once instructions have been withdrawn in this fashion then counsel is bound to withdraw.”

In adjourning the hearing until January, Justice Burns said he would give Hoffmann the chance to try to engage other lawyers but warned there was no guarantee of success.

“I’m giving you an opportunity to deal with the legal aid office and if they are amenable to granting you a further grant of legal aid, to instruct further lawyers, but this can’t go on forever,” he said.

“If the legal aid office refuses a further grant of legal aid then it may well be that you will be required to continue without being legally represented so that’s something you are going to have to consider.”

It comes after Mr Tippett sensationally threatened to quite the case mid-trial after he told the court Hoffmann had “suggested that we stand between him and a fair trial”.

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

The high profile silk withdrew that earlier application to walk away and the trial continued until Hoffmann eventually pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and one of manslaughter following a bloodthirsty rampage through Darwin in 2019.

Hoffmann is facing three mandatory life sentences but Justice Burns will now hear expert evidence before deciding whether or not to set a non-parole period of at least 25 years.