Published 24 May 2019
Sentencing — WorkSafe prosecution — PCBU — consequential loss — physical harm — reparations — workplace death — reparation for loss consequential on physical harm to another — ACC shortfall — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 ss 22, 36, 48, 151, 152 — HSWA — Sentencing Act 2002 ss 9 & 32 — Land Transport Act 1998 — Accident Compensation Act 2001 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Stevens and Stevens Limited [2018] NZDC 19098 3 Oceana Gold (New Zealand) Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 365 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Oceana Gold (New Zealand) [2018] NZDC 5274 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour (2009) 7 NZELR 322 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Department of Corrections [2016] NZDC 24865 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Department of Labour v Eziform Roofing Products Ltd [2013] NZHC 1526 — House Movers (Rotorua) Ltd v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZHC 1208 — Jones v WorkSafe [2015] NZHC 781 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135. The defendant company, having pleaded guilty to a charge of breaching the Health and Safety at Work Act, ss 36(1)(a) and 48 ("HSWA"), faced sentence, following the death of an employee. The deceased was driving a truck that he was not licenced to operate, nor was he wearing a seatbelt. The truck ran off the road and rolled down a bank; the driver died at the scene. In determining reparations, the Judge considered case law and ordered the defendant pay $115,000 for emotional harm to the victim's family ($26,000 had already been paid) and, in light of High Court decision in Oceana Gold, a further $59,354.66 (plus $3,380 in disbursements) for consequential loss reparations, under the Sentencing Act, s 32. The Judge identified the following culpability factors in reaching a starting point for the fine of $625,000; the defendant's failure to communicate, monitor or enforce its polices; the obviousness of the hazard; the risk of potential injury of death, and; the degree of departure from industry standards. The Judge granted a discount of 25 percent for mitigating factors, namely; the defendant's good safety record (5 percent); reparations and remorse (15 percent); co-operation and remedial action taken (5 percent). A further 25 per cent discount was granted for the defendant's guilty plea. The final sentence was $115,000 in emotional harm reparations (less the $26,000 already paid), $59,354.66 (plus $3,380) for consequential loss, a fine of $351,563, and a costs contribution of $3,500. Judgment Date: 7 May 2019.
This website explains many of the things you might want to know if you are coming to the Youth Court, or just wondering how the Youth Court works.
Visit website›Ministry of Justice website with information on family issues including about going to court, forms and other times when you may need help.
Visit website›For information about courts and tribunals, including going to court, finding a court & collection of fines and reparation.
Visit website›On this site you will find information about our Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court including recent decisions, daily lists and news.
Visit website›