Sentencing — exposing workers to risk of death or serious injury — danger from falling objects — freezing works — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 32, 36, 48, 151 & 152-158 — Best Practice Guidelines for Safe Use of Machinery — Meat Industry Health and Safety Guidelines 2013 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe NZ Ltd [2018] 3 NZLR 881 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland, CRI-2008-404-322, 5/2/2009 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections [2016] NZDC 24865 — WorkSafe v Shore Living Ltd and Chang Yun Construction Ltd [2021] NZDC 13214 — WorkSafe v Vehicle Inspection NZ Ltd [2021] NZDC 3036 — WorkSafe v Centreport Ltd [2019] NZDC 12020 — WorkSafe v Alderson Poultry Ltd [2019] NZDC 25090 — WorkSafe v Higgins Contractors Ltd [2020] NZDC 17036 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd HC Christchurch CRI-2008-409-2, 16 December 2008 — Department of Labour v Street Smart Ltd HC Hamilton, CRI-2008-419-26, 8 August 2008 — Jones v WorkSafe NZ [2015] NZHC 781 — WorkSafe NZ v AFFCO NZ Ltd [2020] NZDC 12998 — WorkSafe NZ v AFFCO NZ Ltd [2020] NZDC 13629 — WorkSafe NZ v AFFCO NZ Ltd [2016] NZHC 2862. The defendant freezing works appeared for sentence on a charge of exposing its workers to the risk of death or serious injury. One of its employees (the victim) was crushed to death in a blast freezer when a steel frame crate fell on him. An investigation by the prosecution showed that the blast freezer was old and lacked the safety features of newer blast freezers. Further the defendant had failed to identify the hazard posed by falling steel frames inside the blast freezer, had not risk-assessed the blast freezer using the latest Standard, and had failed to properly record all prior safety incidents involving the blast freezer. The Court commented that the accident had been "wholly avoidable." The sentencing followed the process established by the Stumpmaster judgment. The Court found that the reparations of $139,171 and the consequential losses of $84,471 that the defendant had already paid to the victim's widow and family were appropriate. In setting a fine, the Court found the defendant to be of high culpability. The hazard had been obvious, and the blast freezer should have been decommissioned long before the accident occurred. The start point for fine was $750,000, uplifted by another $67,500 for previous offending. Following discounts for guilty plea, full cooperation with the investigation, remorse, payment of reparations and remedial actions, the final fine was $502,500 plus court costs of $130. There were also prosecutor's costs of $5346.55. Judgment Date: 23 June 2023.