Sentencing — failing to ensure the health and safety of workers — exposing workers to risk of death or serious injury — scaffolding — fall from height — impact of COVID-19 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 8, 14, 36, 40(1), 41, 48, 151 & 152-158 — District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, r 5.2 — Scaffolding in New Zealand: Good Practice Guidelines, ss 4, 4.5, 8, 8.5 & 8.16 — Best Practice Guidelines for Scaffolding in New Zealand — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Lindsay Whyte Painters and Decorators Ltd [2017] NZDC 28091 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Build Northland Ltd [2019] NZDC 23940 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Agility Building Solutions Ltd [2018] NZDC 24165 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Tower Scaffolding Group Ltd [2019] NZDC 26448 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — Mobile Refrigeration Specialists Ltd v Department of Labour HC Hamilton CRI-2009-419-94, 29 March 2010 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Benchmark Homes Canterbury Ltd [2016] NZDC 7093. The defendant construction company appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to ensure the safety of its workers, thereby exposing those workers to the risk of death or serious injury. A WorkSafe inspection of one of the defendant's construction sites found workers using an improperly-constructed scaffold while building a concrete wall. The scaffold had missing guard rails and was footed on blocks that were too high. Also the workers had been given no information on the load limits of the scaffold. The employees who erected the scaffold had done so without proper training or supervision; senior employees of the defendant had simply shown them a photo of a completed scaffold. The Court observed that the defendant had failed to follow the Good Practice Guidelines on scaffolding, as well as its own hazard register and health and safety manual. No loss or injuries had occurred from the offending, so the Court did not need to consider reparations. The Court found that the offering had created a moderate risk of serious injury; that it represented a serious departure from industry standards; that the hazard was obvious; and that it would have been cheap and easy to remedy. Therefore the start point for fine was $200,000. The Court uplifted this amount by five per cent for prior notices, and then made a discount of five per cent for cooperation with the investigation. There were further discounts for remedial steps and guilty plea, for a final amount of $140,000 plus costs. After receiving information on the defendant's financial position, the Court reduced the fine to $100,000 plus costs, to be paid in instalments. Judgment Date: 6 November 2020