Sentencing — failing to ensure health and safety of workers — exposing workers to risk of serious injury or death — roadworks — roller crash — project order — economic impact of COVID-19 — Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, ss 36(1)(a), 48(1), 48(2)(c) & 151 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 8, 14, 40 & 41 — Stumpmaster v WorkSafe New Zealand [2018] NZHC 2020 — Department of Labour v Hanham and Philp Contractors Ltd (2008) 6 NZELR 79 — Big Tuff Pallets Ltd v Department of Labour HC Auckland CRI-2008-404-322, 5 February 2009 — WorkSafe New Zealand v The Sunday Hive Co Ltd [2018] NZDC 20796 — Department of Labour v Taranaki Civil Construction Ltd DC New Plymouth CRI-2011-043-3018, 25 October 2011 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Mangorei Sawmill Ltd [2015] NZDC 483 — Moses v R [2020] NZCA 296 — Maritime New Zealand v Fullers Group Ltd [2020] NZDC 10157 — Mobile Refrigeration Specialists Ltd v Department of Labour (2010) 7 NZELR 2437 — WorkSafe New Zealand v Benchmark Homes Canterbury Ltd [2016] NZDC 7093 — YSB Group Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2019] NZHC 2570 — Department of Labour v Street Smart Ltd (2008) 5 NZELR 603. The defendant company appeared for sentence on a charge of failing to ensure the health and safety of its workers, thereby exposing them to the risk of serious injury or death. It was a contracting company that had been carrying out roadworks using a 7.5-tonne roller. The roller lost control on a narrow road shoulder and rolled down a bank. The roller driver (the victim) had to jump clear and suffered major injuries. Given the extent of the injuries to the victim and the major impact on his life, the Court ordered emotional harm reparations of $50,000 along with consequential loss of $18,092.14. The Court found that the roller was too big for the job it was being used for; therefore the decision to use it was a major departure from industry standards. The risk was obvious and easily-avoided. The start point for fine was $500,000, and the Court allowed discounts for reparations, support to the victim, cooperation with the investigation, good prior safety record, remedial steps, playing an active role in the community, and guilty plea. These discounts reduced the fine to $275,000 plus prosecution costs of $10,407. The Court then made a project order requiring the defendant to write an article on the incident, to be published in an approved industry publication. The project order meant another reduction of $4000; however the Court declined to reduce the fine further to take account of the economic impact of COVID-19, given the defendant's profitability and the government's economic support for the region. The final fine was $271,000. Judgment Date: 3 September 2020