“Looks like it’s caught on a bit of wood.”
These were the words spoken over the radio - moments before a forestry worker was fatally injured by a flying cable in August 2016.
The words were spoken by a forestry hauler operator who had just heard Niko Brooking-Hodgson radio him to say, “That was the last drag – shackle in the eye” - an instruction to start pulling in the line.
Brooking-Hodgson’s radio instruction to stop the operation never came. Nor did he respond, as he usually did, to the hauler operator’s “all clear” when the line appeared to free itself from being snagged on the wood.
The next thing the operator saw was another worker, running down a hill, waving his arms.
Evidence later presented to court would reveal that the snagged line and shackle had broken free, lashing back “like a missile”, hitting 24-year-old Brooking-Hodgson and causing fatal injuries.
A seven-year battle by his father, Richard Brooking, to hold the forestry company, D G Logging Limited, to account appeared to come to an end this week when a district court judge dismissed his private prosecution.
Judge Geoff Rea, deciding in the company’s favour, said there was no doubt D G Logging had undertaken “considerable hazard identification and risk assessment around the use of ropes and associated activities in all aspects of the work”.
But Brooking may not yet have reached the end of the legal road. He told NZME he might appeal the judge’s decision, depending on advice from his lawyers.
WorkSafe investigated the death, but decided not to charge the logging company.
Brooking then launched the private prosecution, taking the company into the Napier District Court on August 22 - the seventh anniversary of his son’s death. The courtroom observed a minute’s silence to mark the date.
His lawsuit charged the company under the Health and Safety at Work Act of failing to comply with a duty to ensure the health and safety of its workers.
Judge Rea’s reserved decision, released this week, found that Brooking had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. He dismissed the case.
Brooking disagreed with the verdict.
“I don’t think it was a good call on the judge’s behalf,” Brooking said. “But he’s the man at the end of the day.”
At the time Brooking-Hodgson died, he was employed as a breaker-out in the Esk Forest, northwest of Napier.
A breaker-out connects felled trees to a cable so they can be hauled out of the immediate area for processing.
He was on sloping terrain, retrieving a log-hauler line so the hauling rig could be moved, when he was struck by a cable that had the D-shackle attached to it.
The court was told the line and shackle had become snagged.
Prosecuting lawyer Fletcher Pilditch said when it broke free, the instantaneous release of tension on the line caused it to jettison toward Brooking-Hodgson in an uncontrolled way.
Brooking-Hodgson was struck in the head and chest.
“Tragically, Mr Brooking-Hodgson … tried to evade the cable with the shackle on the end, and may have even placed his hand up to protect his head, but was struck by the cable or the shackle or a combination of both,” Pilditch said.
A trainee who was working with Brooking-Hodgson, who had just told him not to stand in a dangerous position, was also hit by the cable but did not suffer any lasting or serious injuries.
Brooking-Hodgson received first aid and CPR from his workmates, and an ambulance and rescue helicopter were called immediately, but he was pronounced dead when paramedics arrived.
Judge Rea said the company had more than 400 hazards and controls registered on a site hazard database in 2016, and in audits carried out only days before the accident Brooking-Hodgson was tested and had scored 99.5 per cent and 100 per cent.
“Line retrieval was just one of the jobs involved in dealing with moving ropes,” Judge Rea said.
“There can be no doubt as a result of that and the very regular audit process taken by the defendant that all employees knew of the dangers of moving ropes, and that being in the bight of a rope was always an extremely dangerous place to be.”
The judge said the company had done what was “reasonably practicable” in proper hazard identification and training.
Brooking said that he was waiting for some guidance from his legal team before deciding his next steps.
He said the amount of money he had spent on pursuing the case had been minimal, as much of the legal work was being done pro bono by his lawyers.
