Sentencing — failure to ensure the health and safety of workers — exposure of workers to risk of serious injury — crushing injuries — Brake Press — operation of dangerous equipment — AS/NZS 4024 machinery safety standard — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c), 151(2) & 152-158 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 32 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland, CRI-2008-404-322, 5 February 2009 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Industrial Tube Manufacturing Company Ltd, CRI-2014-019-001977, 20 August 2014 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Timbershade Blinds Ltd [2016] NZDC 15833 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Marshall Industries Ltd [2018] NZDC 4498 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd [2008] 6 NZELR 79 — YSB Group Limited v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 2570. The defendant company appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers, thereby exposing its workers to a risk of serious injury. One of the defendant's employees (the victim) had disabled a safety sensor beam on a brake press machine which, when his arm interrupted the sensor beam, had caused the machine to jam and prevented him from completing the task (fabricating flashings) that he was engaged in. The brake press machine was known to jam due to the sensor beam being interrupted while fabricating flashings and operators frequently disabled the sensor beam to complete the task. Subsequently the victim's hand got caught in the machine, causing him crushing injuries that meant that two of his fingertips had to be amputated. A WorkSafe investigation showed that the machine did not comply with the relevant safety standard, for reasons including that it lacked a proper guard and that there should have been a stricter system in place for disabling the safety sensor beam. Also the defendant had not carried out a risk assessment for the machine, and lacked proper procedures and documentation for its use. Given the impact on the victim, the Court ordered reparations of $27,000, reduced to $24,000 to reflect payments that the defendant had already made. The Court found that the defendant's failure to develop a safe system of work was a departure from industry standards, and that the hazard posed by the machine was significant and obvious. However, a WorkSafe inspection some ten months before the incident had identified no significant safety issues with the defendant's premises, a factor found relevant to assessing culpability. The Court found the defendant's culpability to fall in the middle of the medium band, and set a start point for fine of $400,000. The defendant earned reductions for its good safety record, cooperation with the investigation, reparations paid, remorse, remedial steps and guilty plea, lowering the fine to $180,000. Given the defendant's financial position the Court made no orders for the fine to be paid, but did order the defendant pay costs of $2491.95. Judgment Date: 12 June 2020