Sentencing — exposing workers to risk of serious injury or death — forestry — contributory negligence — joint and several liability — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 32, 36(1)(a), 48(1), 151 & 152-158 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 9, 14 & 32 — Health & Safety at Work (Worker Engagement, Participation, and Representation) Regulations 2016 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe NZ Limited [2018] 3 NZLR 881 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland, CRI-2008-404-322, 5/2/2009 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections [2016] NZDC 24865 — Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd v WorkSafe NZ [2019] NZHC 365 — WorkSafe NZ v NE Parkes & Sons Ltd [2020] NZDC 25449 — WorkSafe v Ports of Auckland Limited [2020] NZDC 25308 — WorkSafe v Stevens & Stevens [2018] NZDC 19098 — WorkSafe v Homegrown Juice Company [2019] NZDC 16605 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Oceana Gold (NZ) Ltd v WorkSafe NZ [2019] NZHC 365. Two defendant forestry companies appeared for sentence on charges of exposing their workers to the risk of serious injury or death. One of the first defendant's employees (the victim) had been struck by a log during a logging operation, and was fatally injured. The first defendant had failed to take steps to ensure that its employees were conducting log extraction in a safe manner; in particular, it had failed to ensure that its employees were standing at a safe distance during extraction. These failures were exacerbated by the fact that the first defendant had been aware that the victim's work crew was in the habit of breaking safety rules and flouting safety work standards. The practices of the victim's work crew had come to light via audits conducted by the second defendant, which had contracted the first defendant to carry out log harvesting. The second defendant was also culpable in that it failed to ensure that the first defendant took effective action after the audits exposed the poor work practices. The Court began by ordering emotional harm reparations of $117,916 to the victim's family members. The defendants were jointly and severally liable for payment of the amount, with $70,749.60 payable by the first defendant and $47,166.40 by the second. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments that their culpability and the quantum of reparations should be reduced because the defendant contributed to the accident with his own negligence. The victim had had prohibited drugs in his system at the time of the accident and also failed to pay close attention to the extraction and to follow instructions to stand further away; however had the defendants ensured that their workers always stood at a safe distance during log extraction, the accident would not have occurred. The first defendant's offending fell within the high culpability band set in Stumpmaster, meaning a start point for fine of $720,000. The second defendant's offending fell within the high end of medium, meaning a start point of $480,000. Both defendants earned discounts for guilty pleas, payments of reparations, cooperation with investigation, otherwise good safety records, and remorse. The final fine was $468,000 for the first defendant and $288,000 for the second. The Court also ordered prosecution costs of $24,200, 60 per cent payable by the first defendant and 40 per cent by the second. Finally, the Court made a consequential loss order of $138,492, to be distributed between three members of the victim's family. Judgment Date: 16 July 2021