Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — exposing workers to risk of death or serious injury — forestry — log-hauler — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020, (2018) 3 NZLR 881 — Civil Aviation Authority v The Helicopter Line Ltd [2018] NZDC 3559 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Sullivan Packaging Ltd [2017] NZDC 12092 — Jones v WorkSafe New Zealand [2015] NZHC 781 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Ron Frew Family Partnership Ltd [2018] NZDC 20330 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Richard Stodart Building Ltd [2019] NZDC 4119 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Atlas Concrete Ltd [2017] NZDC 27233 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135, [2011] 1 NZLR 607 — Mobile Refrigeration Specialists Ltd v Department of Labour [2010] 7 NZELR 243 (HC) — YSB Group Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 2570 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3(2), 22, 36(1)(a), 48, 151 & 152-158 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 8 & 32 — New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 8 — Summary Proceedings Act 1957, s 86. The defendant company appeared for sentence on one charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers, thereby exposing its workers to the risk of death or serious injury. It was a forestry company that had been engaged in clearing and felling pine trees from a forestry block. As part of this work it was using a log-hauler machine to extract the felled logs. The incident giving rise to the charge occurred when the machine became jammed, which led to one of the defendant's workers (the victim) suffering fatal injuries when trying to unjam it. A subsequent investigation of the incident revealed that the guards and barriers to prevent such accidents from occurring were not in place at the time. The defendant did have the proper guards, but these had been temporarily removed to allow the machine to be moved during the extraction process. The Court ordered no reparations, given that the defendant had already paid a total of $59,144.10 to the victim's family for insurance and various expenses. The Court observed that the defendant's failings had not been proven to have caused the fatal accident (the exact cause of the victim's fatal injuries had not been established), so this amount was more than may have been ordered anyway. In setting the quantum of fine, the Court found that the removal of the guards created an obvious and easily-avoided risk, and that the defendant had significantly departed from industry standards. Therefore, the defendant's culpability fell into the medium band set out in Stumpmaster. Given the level of culpability and the fact that a fatality had resulted, the Court set a starting point for fine of $320,000. The defendant earned discounts for voluntary payment of reparations, cooperation with the investigation, good prior safety record, remorse, remedial steps, and guilty plea, reducing the fine to $180,000. The Court's proportionality assessment subsequently reduced the fine to $150,000. The Court also ordered the defendant to pay WorkSafe $7920 in costs, plus court costs of $130. Judgment Date: 20 April 2020