Judge satisfied training, supervision were inadequate
The High Court of New Zealand has dismissed the appeal of a meat processing company that was convicted for a workplace accident that left an employee amputated.
Progressive Meats Ltd attempted to appeal the conviction handed by Hastings District Court that ruled it responsible for the amputation of an employee's thumb, index finger, middle finger, and ring finger.
The incident took place in October 2020, when Alesana Baker's right hand was struck by the brisket cutter blades after using one hand.
But the cutter wasn't meant for single-handed use, according to WorkSafe, noting that even Progressive Meats' supervisors, senior management, and company owners were unaware that the machinery was being used single-handedly by employees.
The Hastings District Court ruled that "training was completely inadequate and… positively dangerous."
Progressive Meats was fined with $280,000 and reparations of $48,000.
Appeal to the High Court
But the meat processing company made its appeal to the High Court, claiming that the evidence was "not sufficient to support any conclusion of guilt."
According to Progressive Meats, the judge erred in finding that they failed to train the victim on how to properly use the brisket cutters, pointing out that the evidence did not support such conclusion.
"The appellant says the manner in which that conclusion was reached gives rise to a miscarriage of justice," the court document said.
In response, WorkSafe New Zealand maintained that Progressive Meats was guilty and that the training it provided was "inadequate."
According to WorkSafe, evidence had shown that the victim's inadequate training was done under the company's supervision.
"The faults in the victim's training, and the subsequent lack of proper monitoring and supervision, were attributable to the appellant," the court document said, citing WorkSafe's argument.
High Court decision
By the end, the High Court upheld the Hastings District Court's decision.
"The Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on the fact that the training and supervision were inadequate. There was sufficient evidence for him to reach that conclusion," the High Court said in its decision.
The High Court also cited the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, which it said provides statutory basis where liability is grounded.
"In this case, the liability and safety procedures rests with the appellant," the High Court said.