Sentencing — high-risk of serious injury — working at height — scaffold collapsing — lack of training, documentation and procedure on use of scaffold — no effective risk assessment — failure to identify hazard — no safe system of work for the use of the mobile scaffold — secondary school — Board of Trustees — Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking — PCBU — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v KLS Roofing Ltd [2014] NZDC 9 — Department of Labour v Eziform Roofing Products Ltd [2013] NZHC 1526 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Agility Building Solutions Ltd [2018] NZDC 24165 — Best Practice Guidelines in respect of Scaffolding in New Zealand, parts 5 and 12 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 48(1), 48(2)(c), 151(2) & 155 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7, 8, 9, 10 & 32 — Education Act 1989, sch 6 part 2 cl 4 — Victims’ Rights Act 2002, s 4 — Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992. The defendant appeared for sentence on two charges of failing to ensure the safety of persons carrying out work as part of an undertaking of the school. The charges arose from an incident where a staff member and a group of students were using a mobile scaffold to set up stage lighting. The scaffold collapsed, seriously injuring two people. Both victims suffered brain injuries, with major long-term effects. A WorkSafe investigation showed that the staff member and students using the scaffold had no safety training, and that the defendant lacked policies, procedures and documentation regarding its use. The Court ordered reparations of $50,000 to the staff member, who had had to resign from their job because of the nature of the injuries. The Court considered that the long-term effects of the student's injuries were slightly less severe, and ordered reparations of $45,000, and that the student's mother be paid $5000 for emotional harm. The Court observed that the defendant had failed to take steps to prevent the accident, that the risk was obvious, and that the incident had serious consequences. However the nature of the Boards of Trustees, including their heavy workloads, wide range of responsibilities, and difficulties in recruitment, reduced the defendant's culpability for the accident. The Court found the defendant's culpability was at the upper end of medium, and set a start point for fine at $500,000. Discounts for previous good character, payment of reparations, remorse, cooperation with the investigation, remorse and guilty plea reduced the fine to $281,000. After hearing evidence of the defendant's financial position, the Court decided not to impose the fine. The Court ordered costs to WorkSafe of $2592 and ordered the defendant to undertake work publicising the dangers of work in educational facilities and steps that need to be taken. Judgment Date: 24 October 2019.