Sentencing — exposing individuals to risk of harm — demolition — asbestos — Health and Safety At Work Act 2015, ss 3, 36(1) (a), 36(2), 48(1), 48(2)(c), 151(2) & 152 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 & 8 — Health and Safety at Work (Asbestos Regulations) 2016 — Worksafe New Zealand v Quick Earth Moving Limited [2019] NZDC 18190 — Stumpmaster v Worksafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 220 — Worksafe New Zealand v Ikon Homes NZ Ltd [2019] NZDC 16134 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philip Contractors Limited (2008) 6 NZELR 79. The defendant appeared for sentence on three charges of exposing individuals to the risk of harm. It had been acting as the project manager on a residential development. The project had required a house to be demolished. The defendant had previously engaged a different company (QEM) to carry out the demolition, and during the demolition a concrete wall on the site collapsed onto a neighbouring property. The prosecuting agency launched an investigation and found that there was asbestos on the site, which QEM had failed to detect. The workers on the site were endangered by the wall collapse and the undiscovered asbestos. The wall collapse also caused damage to the neighbouring property and narrowly avoided injuring the property owner. The Court found that the defendant was a person carrying out a business or undertaking, and so had had a duty to ensure the health and safety of QEM's workers and of the occupants of neighbouring properties. The Court found that the defendant was not liable for reparations to the owner of the neighbouring property. However, the defendant's failure to assess the risks associated with the demolition and the presence of asbestos meant that it had fallen seriously sort of industry standards. The consequences of these failures were potentially serious. The start point for fine was $300,000. The defendant's good prior record allowed a discount of $45,000, meaning a final fine of $255,000. However the Court made no order for the payment of this fine, given that the defendant was in liquidation. Judgment Date: 31 May 2023