The Queen v Hoffmann

Case [2021] NTSC 31

CITATION:The Queen v Hoffmann [2021] NTSC 31

PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v

HOFFMANN, Benjamin

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction

FILE NO:21922564

DELIVERED:  22 March 2021

HEARING DATE:  8 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Crown:  M Nathan SC with T Grealy and R Everitt

Accused:J Tippett QC with C Voumard

Solicitors:

Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Judgment category classification:     C

Judgment ID Number:  Gra2103

Number of pages:  36

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The Queen v Hoffmann [2021] NTSC 31

No 21922564

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

BENJAMIN HOFFMANN

CORAM:    GRANT CJ

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 22 March 2021)

  1. The accused is charged by indictment dated 28 February 2020 with four counts of murder, four counts of recklessly endangering life, four counts of unlawful entry with intent to assault, one count of threat to kill and one count of criminal damage.  Those offences are alleged to have been committed on 4 June 2019.  The parties have sought to have determined as preliminary issues the admissibility of tendency and coincidence evidence, and the admissibility of representations contained in a statutory declaration made by a witness who has since died.

The Crown case

  1. The Crown case is that in the days prior to 4 June 2019, the accused acquired weapons for the purpose of taking revenge on a man he believed was providing drugs to the accused’s girlfriend and prevailing on her to work as a prostitute.  On 4 June 2019, the accused consumed a quantity of methamphetamine, armed himself with a shotgun and travelled to the Darwin rural area looking for his girlfriend.  In the course of that search he unlawfully entered into a number of dwelling houses while armed with the shotgun, threatened to kill one woman, and recklessly endangered the life of another woman by the use of a motor vehicle.

  2. The accused then left the rural area and drove to an inner-city motel in which he knew the man he was looking for had previously been living, and which he believed the man still visited from time to time.  The accused unlawfully entered the motel.  While there he shot and killed the caretaker and fired the shotgun in a manner that recklessly endangered the lives of two other people.

  3. The accused then left the motel and drove to a block of units nearby.  He unlawfully entered those premises and shot through the door of the first unit, killing the occupant.  He then shot through the door of the second unit and unlawfully entered it, recklessly endangering the life of the occupant of that unit in the process.

  4. The accused then left the block of units and went to a nearby club where he had arranged to meet a male associate.  The associate was waiting in the carpark when the accused arrived.  Following an argument, the accused punched his associate to the head causing…

Continue reading The Queen v Hoffmann

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Hoffmann [2021] NTSC 31
Case
[2021] NTSC 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Hoffmann involved a criminal prosecution where the defendant was accused of multiple offences, including assault, unlawful entry, and property damage. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of eight previous incidents of alleged violent behaviour by the defendant to demonstrate a tendency towards violence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether this evidence was admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The legal issues centred around the admissibility of tendency evidence under section 101 of the Evidence Act, specifically whether the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court had to consider the relevance and weight of the prior incidents in determining the likelihood of the defendant's guilt in the current charges.

The High Court held that the evidence of the eight previous incidents was admissible. The court reasoned that the probative value of the evidence, which demonstrated a pattern of violent behaviour, substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court noted that the incidents were not too remote in time and were sufficiently similar to the current charges to support an inference of a tendency towards violence. The court also considered the importance of the evidence in establishing the defendant's state of mind and propensity to commit the charged offences. The detailed and consistent nature of the prior incidents, along with the escalation in violence over time, supported the conclusion that the evidence was highly relevant and necessary for the jury to properly assess the defendant's guilt.

The court concluded that the evidence of the prior incidents was properly admitted and could be considered by the jury in determining the defendant's guilt. The decision underscores the importance of evaluating tendency evidence on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the similarity of the past incidents to the current charges, the relevance of the evidence to the issues in the case, and the potential prejudicial effect on the defendant. The court's ruling affirmed the admissibility of the evidence, allowing it to be weighed by the jury alongside other evidence presented in the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Section 101 of the ENULA then provides that tendency evidence cannot be used against a defendant unless its probative value substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect:101 Further restrictions on tendency evidence and coincidence evidence adduced by prosecution(1) This section only applies in a criminal proceeding and so applies in addition to sections 97 and 98.(2) Tendency evidence about a defendant, or coincidence evidence about a defendant, that is adduced by the prosecution cannot be used against the defendant unless the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the defendant.(3) This section does not apply to tendency evidence that the prosecution adduces to explain or contradict tendency evidence adduced by the defendant.(4) This section does not apply to coincidence evidence that the prosecution adduces to explain or contradict coincidence evidence adduced by the defendant. The evidence sought to be adduced for tendency purposes relates to eight previous incidents which took place between 1995 and 2014, in which the accused is said to have behaved violently. Those incidents and the tendencies they are said to prove are set out in the table at Attachment A. The incidents may be summarised briefly as follows.(1)On 23 June 1995, the accused punched another man to the ground in a Darwin hotel and kicked the victim in the head while he lay on the ground unconscious, breaking his jaw and causing grievous harm.(2)On 9 August 2003, the accused struck another man in the face in a Darwin nightclub, threw him to the ground and then stomped on his face.(3)On 4 July 2006, the accused caused criminal damage to another man’s motor vehicle when the victim refused to allow the accused to reside at the victim’s shed.(4)On 27 October 2007, the accused unlawfully entered residential premises in an attempt to locate a man with whom he had a drug dispute.(5)On 12 November 2009, the accused attended his mother’s residence but she would not let him in and called police. When police attended, the accused challenged them to a fight and resisted arrest. He had to be subdued with capsicum spray and physical force.(6)On 2 April 2010, the accused punched a security guard in the jaw after being asked to leave a Darwin bar.(7)On 10 December 2010, the accused went to another man’s house and punched the victim to the right side of the face, knocking him unconscious.(8)On 14 December 2014, the accused jumped the back fence of a suburban dwelling armed with a baseball bat, smashed the two rear windows and back door of the premises with the baseball bat, and unlawfully entered the house. The accused then went to a different residence in another suburb, smashed the rear window of a motor vehicle with the baseball bat, smashed the windows of a second motor vehicle, and then smashed the windows of the residential premises. The accused then went to another residence in a different suburb and smashed the windows of two motor vehicles. The accused then went to another residence, smashed the windows of another motor vehicle, entered the premises in which another man, a woman and two children were present, and struck the male victim three times to the back of the head with the baseball bat.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.