Sentencing — failing to ensure safety of employees — exposing employees to hazards — spinal injury — emotional harm reparation — Department of Labour, Safety Code for Forklift Truck Operators: No. 1 Front Loading Forklift Trucks — ProDriver Training Ltd, Operate an Industrial Powered Lift Truck (Forklift) & F Endorsement Study Guide — Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, ss, 6, 15(1)(a) & 51A — Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, s 4 — Sentencing Act 2002, s 32(1)(b) — WorkSafe New Zealand v Talley’s Group Ltd [2016] NZDC 23299 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Talley’s Group Ltd [2017] NZHC 1103 — Talley’s Group Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZCA 587 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Department of Labour v Sealed Air (New Zealand) DC Waitakere CRI-2011-090-008896, 13 June 2012 — MBIE v Mount Pack and Cool Ltd DC Tauranga CRI-2013-070-004424, 26 August 2013 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-000322, 6 February 2009 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Seventh-Day Adventists Church Property Trustee NZ [2015] NZDC 25135 — Oceania Gold (New Zealand) Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 365 — Davies v Police [2009] NZSC 47 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Freight Haulage Ltd DC Invercargill CRI-2015-025-002187, 12 April 2016 — Hessell v R [2010] NZSC 135. The defendant appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of its employees, thereby exposing its employees to hazards. The defendant operated a vegetable processing plant, where the victim in this matter worked as a forklift driver. An accident occurred when the victim was struck by a falling bin when carrying out stacking work in the cool store. The bin knocked the victim to the ground and caused her a major spinal injury that left her a paraplegic. An investigation determined that the defendant should have had in place a Standard Operating Procedure aimed at preventing the bins from falling. Following the approach to sentencing laid out in the Hanham & Philp case, the Court began by assessing emotional harm reparations. The accident had had a major impact on the victim's life, and after assessing the authorities the Court ordered $50,000 in emotional harm reparations. After the accident the defendant had attempted to retrain the victim and offer her alternative employment, but this had been unsuccessful and the victim had not worked since. However the defendant had also made efforts to support the victim and her family. The Court took account of these factors and ordered $131,204.58 in consequential loss reparations. The Court considered that the accident occurred because the defendant had significantly departed from industry standards for lifting and carrying goods by forklift; therefore $60,000 was an appropriate start point for fine. The Court added a 10 per cent uplift for previous convictions, by allowed discounts for reparations, remorse, remedial steps, cooperation with the investigation, and guilty plea. The final fine was $36,000, along with costs. Judgment Date: 3 September 2020