Sentencing — exposing worker to risk of serious injury — crush injuries — conveyor belt — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1) & 152-159 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 7 & 8 — Health and Safety in Employment Regulations 1995, reg 17 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham & Philp Contractors Ltd (2009) 9 NZELC 93,095, (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Zhang v R [2019] NZCA 507, [2019] 3 NZLR 648 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Qing Hong Company Ltd [2016] NZDC 10123 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Niagara Sawmilling Company Ltd [2019] NZDC 9720 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Furntech Plastics Ltd [2018] NZDC 18150 — WorkSafe New Zealand v NZCC Ltd [2019] NZDC 16662 — WorkSafe New Zealand v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZDC 27001 — Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Industrial Processors Ltd DC Waitakere, CRI 2012-090-7036, 26 July 2013 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Allflex Packaging Ltd DC Manukau CRI-2017-092-14520, 15 October 2018. The defendant appeared for sentence after pleading guilty to one charge of exposing its workers to a risk of serious injury. The victim in the matter was cleaning a conveyor belt at one of the defendant's food processing plants when her hand became trapped. The victim suffered severe crush injuries and a laceration to her right hand. A WorkSafe investigation showed that the conveyor belt's nip point was exposed during cleaning, and that the workers were able to reach it; that the nip point's guard had been removed; that there were no hydraulic interlocking devices; and that the conveyor belt's controls had not been locked out prior to cleaning. As the victim had left New Zealand and could not be contacted, the prosecution sought no reparations and the Court ordered none. In setting a fine, the Court observed that the defendant should have ensured that the machine's power be locked out prior to cleaning; that the failure to have a guard in place during cleaning was a departure from industry standards; and that the hazard was obvious, and would have been cheap to mitigate. Reviewing similar decisions, the Court set a start point for fine of $250,000 with a 10 per cent uplift for prior convictions. The defendant was allowed discounts for remorse, efforts to assist the victim, cooperation with the investigation and guilty plea, reducing the total fine to $165,000 as well as costs of $3359. Judgment Date: 8 December 2020.