Sentencing — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA), ss 36(2), 44 & 48 — Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020, [2018] 3 NZLR 881 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-322, 5 February 2009 — Worksafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections [2016] NZDC 24865, [2017] DCR 368 — Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 365, [2019] 3 NZLR 137 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA) - Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philip Contractors Ltd [2008] 6 NZELR 79 (HC) — Worksafe New Zealand v Crafar Crouch Construction [2019] NZDC 8209 — Worksafe New Zealand v Stevens and Stevens Ltd [2018] NZDC 19098 — Worksafe New Zealand v Dimac Contractors Limited [2017] NZDC 26648 — Worksafe New Zealand v Sunday Hive Company Ltd [2018] NZDC 20796 — Maritime New Zealand v Nino’s Limited [2020] NZDC 2536 — Worksafe New Zealand v McKee [2019] NZDC 16341 — Worksafe New Zealand v McRae [2018] NZDC 22096. The defendant and the defendant's company appeared for sentence on two charges of failing to ensure the health and safety of a student hang gliding pilot, the failure of which exposed the victim to a risk of death or serious injury resulting in fatality. The charges arose when the hang glider entered a "lockout" during the course of the lesson and all methods available to release the lockout failed, causing the victim's death. The sentencing approach followed Stumpmaster to assess the amount of reparation, fix the amount of the fine, determine whether further orders were required under the HSWA and make an overall assessment of the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence. The Court recognised the victim's widow and two sons as victims for reparations purposes, looking to the emotional loss suffered by the victim's family and consequential financial loss of future earning capacity. The culpability for the company was assessed at the high end of the medium band, due to the serious and well known nature of the risk of "lockout", the causative failure of equipment, and the failure of the defendants to adhere to industry standards. Discounts were given for a lack of previous convictions, willingness to attend restorative justice, co-operation and offer of reparation, as well as an early guilty plea. Rather than impose a fine, the Judge reached the conclusion that the defendant's emotional reparation offer of $115,000 and consequential financial loss payment of $191,659 would be sufficient. The amount was to be paid by the second defendant in view of the company's lack of available funds. Judgment Date:15 June 2020