Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — demolition site — asbestos — falling objects — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 4, 7-10, 14, 32, 40 & 41 — Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (repealed) — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 3, 36, 48, 151 & 152-158 — Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016, reg 21 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand[2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Hutt Construction 2013 Ltd [2016] NZDC 3652 — WorkSafe New Zealand v DKL Projects [2016] NZDC 25800 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Essential Homes Ltd [2020] NZDC 5873 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Crafar Crouch Construction Ltd [2018] NZDC 26800. The defendant appeared on charges of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers. It was a hotel company that had undertaken demolition work. The defendant accepted an offer from a contracting firm (the contractor) to conduct the demolition for free, in exchange for salvaged materials. The defendant accepted the head contractor's assurance that he was experienced in demolition without conducting any extra checks, and also made no effort to identify hazards or put in place any risk management controls. The defendant loaned the contractors machinery to conduct the demolition, but one of the machines lacked the required protective equipment. Also after the demolition was completed, it was revealed that asbestos was present on the demolition site. The Court found that the workers who undertook the demolition had not suffered any physical or emotional harm, and had not cooperated with the prosecution. Therefore the Court ordered no reparations. In assessing quantum of fine the Court observed that the defendant failed to identify risks, to supervise the demolition, to provide safe equipment, and to verify the expertise of the contractor. There had been elements of willful blindness to the defendant's conduct. Also, the dangers of falling debris and exposure to asbestos raised a risk of serious harm to the workers. The Court assessed the defendant's culpability as falling at the lower end of the medium band, and set a starting point for the fine of $250,000. Discounts for remorse, cooperation, previous good safety record and guilty plea reduced the fine to $159,375. Given the defendant's financial position, the Court set a final fine of $50,000 plus costs. Judgment Date: 14 May 2020