Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — work near powerlines — electric shock — burns — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1) & 48(2)(c) & 151 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 3 & 32 — Electrical Safety Regulations 2010 — New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances — Approved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations — Guide to Electrical Safety for Forestry & Woodlot Felling and Logging — SafeTree Electrical Safety Guidelines for Forestry Operations 2018 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Stumpmaster Ltd [2018] NZHC 2020 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Miller Foods Ltd [2018] NZDC 5948 — WorkSafe New Zealand v BR & SL Porter Ltd Tauranga DC CRI-2014-070-001606, 5 August 2014 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Electrix Ltd [2017] NZDC 20855 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Fall Stop Scaffold Ltd [2020] NZDC 3629 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Northpower Ltd [2017] NZDC 17527 — R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2009) 9 NZELC 93,095. The defendant appeared for sentencing on a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers, thereby exposing them to the risk of death or serious injury from electrocution. It was a logging company that had been harvesting a woodlot site when a piece of equipment came into contact with overhead power lines, causing severe burns to one of the defendant's employees (the victim). The victim required two months of hospital treatment, lost two toes and required multiple surgeries on his right hand. He had not regained full use of his right hand and had ongoing mobility issues; the incident had affected him emotionally and caused stress to his family. The defendant had failed to follow the many industry codes, guidelines and regulations on working close to power lines. In relation to the power lines it had failed to fully identify them as a hazard, to implement controls on working close to them, and to follow its own operating procedures for working close to them. However since the incident it had taken steps to mitigate these failings. Assessing similar cases, the Court ordered emotional harm reparations of $45,000, with deductions for payments that the defendant had already made to the victim. In setting a fine the Court observed that there had been a risk of serious harm or death, that the defendant had departed from industry standards, and that the hazard was obvious and easily-avoided. Accordingly the defendant fell into the medium range of culpability, and the start point for fine was $400,000. With reductions for reparations ordered, cooperation with the investigation, good prior record, remorse, remedial steps and guilty plea, the final fine was $180,000. After considering the defendant's financial position the Court reduced the amount payable to $100,000. The Court also ordered costs of $7263. Judgment date: 24 July 2020