Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — asbestos removal — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 36(1)(a), 49(1)(b), 151(2) & 152-158 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7-10 — Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Peter John Page DC Auckland CRI-2014-004-004462, 12 December 2014 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Hutt Construction 2013 Ltd [2016] NZDC 3652 — Code of Practice, Management and Removal of Asbestos (November 2016) — New Zealand Guidelines for the Management and Removal of Asbestos (Third Edition) — Health Risks from Asbestos Exposure (July 2014). The defendant appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of his workers. He and two employees had been engaged in renovation work on a property where asbestos was present. The property owner had first advised the defendant that there was asbestos at the property but that she would remove it herself. While the defendant and his employees were undertaking the renovation work, a WorkSafe investigation showed that there was still asbestos at the property and the defendant and his employees were working with materials that contained asbestos. The defendant had failed: to carry out a risk assessment on the property before beginning the work; to gain enough information on the asbestos at the property; to have the asbestos removed and disposed of appropriately; to notify WorkSafe of the asbestos removal before beginning work; and to ensure that his workers had the proper protective equipment. Following the guidelines set out in the Stumpmaster decision, the Court began by observing that the offending had not caused any actual losses and therefore no reparations were payable. In assessing the fine, the Court found that the offending had created the potential for serious harm to the defendant's workers, and that his conduct departed considerably from industry standards. The hazard was obvious and easily-avoided. The offending was of medium culpability and attracted a start point for fine of $25,000. In mitigation the defendant had cooperated with the investigation, had a good safety record, and had pleaded guilty. The final fine was $15,000, along with prosecution costs of $831.14 and court costs. Judgment Date: 12 November 2020.