Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — failing to ensure health and safety of others — truck brake failure — failing to maintain truck — failing to establish system for identifying and monitoring maintenance requirements — conduct of victim — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe NZ [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Department of Labour v Tachikawa Forest Products Limited DC Rotorua CRN 06063500932-2, 25 May 2006 — Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Watercare Services Limited DC Auckland CRI-2011-004-21851, 20 September 2013 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections [2017] NZDC 819 — WorkSafe New Zealand v North Island Mussels Ltd [2018] NZDC 20269 — WorkSafe New Zealand v CMP Canterbury Limited [2016] NZDC 11865 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Comber & Seymour Limited [2015] NZDC 8853 — The Queen v Kiwi Timber Protection Limited DC Whangarei CRI-2014-088-001912, 8 December 2014 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Kingstown Blue Spring Resort Limited [2015] — Department of Labour v Eziform Roofing Products Limited [2013] NZHC 1526 — Mareikura v R [2012] NZCA 108 — Gough Gough & Hamer Limited v New Zealand Police HC Wellington CRI-2009-485-000115, 14 December 2009 — Transrail Ltd v Department of Labour [1997] ERNZ 316 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2012, ss 36, 45, 48 & 151 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 9 (2). The defendant appeared for sentence after pleading guilty to charges of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers and failing to ensure the health and safety of others. The defendant was a transportation company that ran about 25 trucks and operated in the Central North Island. The charges arose from an accident that occurred when the brakes on one of the defendant's trucks failed, causing the truck to lose control and collide with another vehicle. The truck driver and the driver of the other vehicle were both injured. Investigations into the accident showed that the truck's brakes were not properly maintained. The truck had not been inspected and maintained as often as the other trucks in the defendant's fleet, as the driver was based in a different location to the defendant's main premises. The driver had had problems with the brakes on the day of the accident, but there was no record of her having mentioned this to the defendant's director prior to the accident. The Court set a start point for fine of $500,000 and reduced this by 25 per cent to reflect the driver's contribution to the accident, in that she continued to drive after having problems with the brakes and did not report the problems to the defendant. The Court applied further discounts for the defendant's good safety record, cooperation with the investigation, remorse, arranging reparation insurance, taking remedial steps, and guilty plea, reducing the fine to $255,000. With regard to the defendant's financial position and the timing of payments, the Court decided to impose a final fine of $150,000. The Court also ordered the defendant to pay emotional harm reparations of $60,000 and consequential loss of $20,340 to the member of the public injured in the accident; emotional harm payments of $25,000 and consequential losses of $1773 to the driver; and costs of $3435. Judgment Date: 12 August 2019.