Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 36(1)(a), 48, 151 & 152-158 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7, 8, 14, 32, 40 & 41 — Victims’ Rights Act 2002, s 21 — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, ss 202 & 205 — Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philip Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Big Tuff Pallets v Department of Labour [2009] 7 NZELR 322 — Department of Labour v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited. DC Upper Hutt, CRI-2005-076-2040, 27 April 2006 — Worksafe v GTT Mechanical [2020] NZDC 4351 — Worksafe New Zealand v VIP Frames and Trusses [2015] NZDC 12612 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philip re Cookie Time Appeal (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Worksafe New Zealand v Carter Holt Harvey Limited [2018] NZDC 22605 — Worksafe New Zealand v Taranaki Sawmills Limited [2020] NZDC 18014 — Worksafe New Zealand Limited v Addiction Foods Limited [2020] NZDC 13929. The defendant company appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers, thereby exposing them to a risk of death or serious injury. The charge arose from an incident where one of its employees (the victim) was shot in the chest with a nail gun. The victim required hospital treatment and subsequently resigned from his job as he felt unsafe working for the defendant. Assessing the losses that the victim suffered, the Court ordered a payment of $651.67 to make up for the shortfall between ACC payments and the victim's wages. Given the other physical, emotional and financial harm that the victim had suffered from the accident, the Court ordered further reparations of $15,000, noting the defendant's willingness to undergo restorative justice and to allow the victim to return to work. The offending was assessed as falling at the high end of medium culpability as established by the Stumpmaster decision. The defendant had failed to properly assess the risks of use of nail guns, failed to train its employees in their safe use, and lacked a proper operating procedure and system of checks and maintenance. The risks in failing to do so were obvious and would have been easy to remedy. The start point for fine was $480,000. Discounts for cooperation with the investigation, payment of reparations, remorse, participation in restorative justice, and guilty plea reduced the fine to $264,000. The Court also awarded costs of $6037.84 to the prosecution and made suppression orders relating to the victim and various other employees. Judgment Date: 21 June 2021.