A Reefton Distilling Company employee who released almost $40,000 worth of highly flammable ethanol after he was sacked could have caused ‘‘catastrophic’’ harm, the Greymouth District Court heard last week.
Angus William Hay, 39, started with the distillery in 2021 as the general manager of operations, responsible for the manufacturing of gin and whisky products and the day-to-day running of the facility and machinery.
He was sacked earlier this year and the day after he received his last payment, he went to the rear of the distillery and opened the valves on two 5000l tanks of ethanol. That released about 6880l of the highly flammable substance into a concrete bund below. The ethanol evaporated while in the bund.
Reefton Distilling sought reparation of $36,000 for the loss.
Distillery founder and chief executive Patsy Bass read a victim impact statement to the court and said the risk Hay caused should be taken seriously in any sentence ‘‘as he knows that he could have killed someone’’.
The company had recruited for the role internationally, resulting in hiring Hay from Scotland.
They quickly became concerned about Hay’s ‘‘obvious’’ heavy drinking.
‘‘Unfortunately, he swiftly became an embarrassment to us.’’
Ms Bass said Hay’s actions had affected the hardworking team, and staff were afraid of running into him in the small town of Reefton.
‘‘We all worry that he will come back to our site and do something more serious, especially after sentencing.’’
She had no doubt Hay was an alcoholic, and said she hoped a conviction would get him the help he needed.
Hay’s lawyer, however, sought a discharge without conviction.
Jennifer North also asked that there be no mention of the country Hay intended to travel to for future employment in open court, as Hay feared his former employer would seek to see him ‘‘blacklisted’’ from distilling there, as he believed had been the case in New Zealand.
Judge Quentin Hix said he was uncomfortable about being asked to suppress that information.
His initial thought was that Hay had not informed the prospective employer of the incident.
‘‘In other words, I’m being asked to stop information that’s relevant going to that person and I’m quite uncomfortable about doing that really.’’
Judge Hix said if the employer was aware of his circumstances, that could strengthen the application for a discharge.
Mrs North said Hay was willing to correspond with his future employer to see if they would still support him taking up the role, and she sought a short adjournment in sentencing for that to happen.
There was also confusion over the main charge, as to whether it was intentional or wilful damage.
Hay previously pleaded guilty to a separate charge of unlawfully being in a yard.
Judge Hix rolled the case over to March 27 to be heard by him in the Christchurch District Court, with Hay to attend by audiovisual link from the Greymouth courthouse.
— Greymouth Star
