WorkSafe New Zealand v Crafar Crouch Construction Picton Ltd  NZDC 8209
Published 24 May 2019
Sentencing — WorkSafe prosecution — PCBU — consequential loss — physical harm — reparations — workplace death — reparation for
loss consequential on physical harm to another — ACC shortfall — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 ss 22, 36, 48, 151, 152 — HSWA
— Sentencing Act 2002 ss 9 & 32 — Land Transport Act 1998 — Accident Compensation Act 2001 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New
Zealand  NZHC 2020 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Stevens and Stevens Limited  NZDC 19098 3 Oceana Gold (New Zealand)
Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand  NZHC 365 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Oceana Gold (New Zealand)  NZDC 5274 — Big
Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour (2009) 7 NZELR 322 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections  NZDC
24865 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Department of Labour v Eziform Roofing
Products Ltd  NZHC 1526 — House Movers (Rotorua) Ltd v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment  NZHC 1208
— Jones v WorkSafe  NZHC 781 — Hessell v R  NZSC 135.
The defendant company, having pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act, ss 36(1)(a) and 48 ("HSWA"), faced sentence, following
the death of an employee.
The deceased was driving a truck that he was not licenced to operate, nor was he wearing a seatbelt. The truck ran off the road and rolled down a bank; the driver
died at the scene.
In determining reparations, the Judge considered case law and ordered the defendant pay $115,000 for emotional harm to the victim's family ($26,000 had already
been paid) and, in light of High Court decision in Oceana Gold, a further $59,354.66 (plus $3,380 in disbursements) for consequential loss reparations, under the
Sentencing Act, s 32.
The Judge identified the following culpability factors in reaching a starting point for the fine of $625,000; the defendant's failure to communicate, monitor or
enforce its polices; the obviousness of the hazard; the risk of potential injury of death, and; the degree of departure from industry standards.
The Judge granted a discount of 25 percent for mitigating factors, namely; the defendant's good safety record (5 percent); reparations and remorse (15 percent);
co-operation and remedial action taken (5 percent). A further 25 per cent discount was granted for the defendant's guilty plea.
The final sentence was $115,000 in emotional harm reparations (less the $26,000 already paid), $59,354.66 (plus $3,380) for consequential loss, a fine of $351,563,
and a costs contribution of $3,500. Judgment Date: 7 May 2019.