A police summary of facts released to the Rotorua Daily Post said Hoffman told police he committed the offending because he was mentally unstable and wanted the police to come so he could be “removed” from his personal problems.
The summary said Hoffman decided to drive to Rotorua from Hamilton, where he lived, to commit the offending.
He parked his vehicle in the Rotorua Central Mall carpark and walked through the bank’s front door at 3.50pm.
Inside were six staff members, four customers and the teenage daughter of a staff member.
Hoffman was greeted by a staff member who asked if she could help.
He said “I’ve got this”, presented a black plastic remote control device that he was holding and said: “I’ve got stuff strapped to my body”.
Hoffman was wearing a zipped-up puffer jacket with an A2 size diary concealed in the front of it to give the appearance he had a bomb strapped to his body.
The staff member believed Hoffman had a bomb and that he was holding the detonation device.
The summary said the staff member managed to remain calm and alert other staff members to the bomb threat by telling them of the threats that had just been made to her.
She was also able to alert bank staff off-site via an internal security system, the summary said.
The defendant loudly ordered the six staff members and five customers to “get down the back” into a staff-only part of the bank.
He waved his arms at them to herd them together and prevent them from leaving.
He made statements to the staff and customers, saying “I’ve only got to press the button” and threatened to “blow the building up”.
One of the customers quickly escaped through the front door and the defendant directed the remaining 10 people into the back of the bank where he detained them.
The victims complied, believing their lives were in “grave danger”.
Hoffman angrily told the complainants to phone the police, the Armed Offenders Squad, and the media.
He said he would not let them go until there were nine police cars outside the bank.
The defendant was given a BNZ cellphone and he unsuccessfully tried to use it to make a phone call then threw the brand-new phone at the wall.
Hoffman told the staff member to get another phone and she gave him her BNZ cellphone, which he also threw at the wall.
Hoffman told the victims he wanted the front doors to the bank locked, and one of the complainants went to the front of the bank to do this.
She was not able to activate the door lock. By this point, a number of the victims had called 111 and were speaking with the police communications centre, which they continued to do for an extended period of time.
The victims provided police with details about what was happening.
Hoffman gave the victims his name and date of birth, which they passed to police. At one point, he irreparably damaged a laptop by throwing it onto the ground.
The victims feared for their lives and continued to believe Hoffman was capable of carrying out his threat to detonate an explosive device underneath his clothing.
A customer, who was upset and panicking, was able to leave through a nearby exit door.
At 3.57pm, the defendant allowed the teenager to leave through a rear door. The other five staff and three customers remained inside the bank.
After detaining the victims at the back of the bank for approximately nine minutes, Hoffman ordered the remaining eight complainants into a glass-walled customer meeting room to get them away from the exit door.
By this point, there was a large police presence outside the bank and on adjacent streets. The first police officers to arrive attempted to engage with the defendant, who just yelled back.
Hoffman wrote a series of notes in large lettering on pieces of paper which he held up to the front windows for police to read.
These included his name, a reference to his mother being murdered, and his life being in danger. He also said he believed his electronic devices were being hacked.
Hoffman continually paced around the main customer area, going back and forth between the front windows and the room where he was detaining the victims.
He took his puffer jacket off and placed it on a counter. In response to police asking if he had any weapons, he lifted his shirt and spun around so they could see he had nothing concealed on his torso.
Hoffman was at times angry and ranting, but told the victims he was sorry for what he was doing.
One of the victims pleaded with him not to hurt them, and he said he wouldn’t. At one stage, Hoffman was crying and said that this was the only way he could get help.
The summary said his mood was very unstable, and his demeanour fluctuated between being upset and angry.
Hoffman allowed some of the victims to go to the bathroom, and then became angry because he thought they were taking too long.
One of the older staff members had become increasingly upset by this point, and following a request from one of her colleagues, Hoffman allowed her to leave the premises.
The police response included the Armed Offenders Squad and Police Negotiating Team who were able to establish communication with the defendant by getting a staff member to hand her cellphone to him.
Police staff continued to negotiate with the defendant by cellphone, and at 4.46pm he allowed the remaining seven complainants to leave through the front doors.
The victims had been detained for 56 minutes.
At 4.50pm, Hoffman agreed to surrender to police, walked out the front door and was arrested.
His actions caused significant disruption to traffic, business activity and members of the public within the Rotorua central business district.
Hoffman told police in an interview afterwards he was mentally unstable and needed help. He said he wanted to be arrested and “removed” from his personal problems. He said by “causing trouble in a bank” he knew police would come.
Police established he was not wearing any explosive devices. Reparation of $2329.51 is sought for the damaged laptop.
In court today, Judge Maree MacKenzie remanded Hoffman in custody to reappear for sentencing on July 7 at 2.15pm.
Hoffman asked Judge Maree MacKenzie if he would be given a chance to let his victims know on the day of sentencing how remorseful he was.
His lawyer, Andrew Schulze, said his client was “keen to make amends” and it was clear from the summary of facts that towards the end of their ordeal he apologised and let some of them leave.
Judge MacKenzie made a referral for the victims to consider restorative justice, indicating it was a voluntary process.
She made an order the victims could appear at sentencing via audio-visual link if they were more comfortable doing so, instead of being physically present in court.
Hoffman also asked Judge MacKenzie if it was possible for his sentencing date to be brought forward, telling her that while on remand he was confined to 23 hours lockdown at Spring Hill Corrections Facility.
“The sooner I am sentenced the sooner I can rehabilitate through this and rectify this.”
Judge MacKenzie said the court needed to find the next available date and July 7 was it.
