She submitted that Judge Rollo had erred when he fixed a $40,000 starting point when assessing the fine before giving Affco credit for mitigating factors. This error was compounded when the judge failed to uplift the starting point to take into account the firm's previous relevant convictions, she said. Ms Harold argued that starting point should have been $80,000 to $90,000 given the company's culpability and when looking at other similar serious injury prosecution cases. "But I say this fits into the lower level of obviousness [of the hazard] which is where Judge Rollo put it when he assessed the company's overall culpability," he said. Mr Hammond further argued Judge Rollo had visited the accident site and heard all the evidence, before he imposed an "adequate" sentence.

Source: New Zealand Herald November 10, 2016 17:59 UTC