Failure of person conducting a business or undertaking to ensure health and safety of workers — impact on victim — ancillary orders — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Limited (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Rangiora Carpets Limited [2017] NZDC 22587 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Kaye’s Bakery Limited [2018] NZDC 5427 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c) — Sentencing Act 2002, s 32(1)(b). The defendant had previously been sentenced on breaches of ss 36(1)(a), 48(1) and 48(2)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work Act, in that it breached its duty as a person conducting a business or undertaking to ensure the health and safety of its workers. In this judgment the Court provided full reasons for the decision. The defendant was a small business that produced and distributed food products. It had recently set up business in Queenstown. The accident occurred when a machine used to make tortillas became stuck and the victim suffered severe burns and crushing injuries when trying to unjam the machine. The tips of three of his fingers had to be amputated. Following the four-step approach to sentencing under the Act, the Court began by assessing the quantum of reparation. The accident caused major physical and emotional suffering to the victim, with permanent physical injuries. Therefore the Court set reparations of $45,000. Next, the Court addressed the quantum of the fine. The Court assessed the defendant's culpability as being in the middle range of medium to high. The victim suffered serious and permanent injuries. He had not been properly supervised and the hazard was known and easily remedied. The Court set a start point for fine of $600,000 and allowed discounts of 25% for cooperation with the investigation, remedial steps, willingness to attend restorative justice and pay reparations; and a further 25% for guilty plea, bringing the fine to $337,500. The Court declined to make an order for costs as all costs had been incurred by Worksafe on an in-house basis. Finally, the Court then made an overall assessment of the apportionality and appropriateness between the reparation and the fine. Looking at the defendant's circumstances, shortcomings and general conduct since the accident, the Court added to the reparations physiotherapist fees of $541 and a shortfall in wages of $6741.97. The Court decided not to impose a fine. Judgment Date: 27 March 2018.