At Cambridge Magistrates Court on 23 June 2016, Wharf Guards Limited director, Richard Kinyanjui, pleaded guilty to providing unlicensed guards between June and August 2015. The operations manager, George Kalmera also pleaded guilty to failing to supply information relating to the investigation.
In August 2015, unannounced visits were made by SIA investigators across three sites. At one site in Cambridge, a man named only then as George was questioned but failed to prove his identity or produce a valid SIA licence, and as a result he was arrested.
The Police were able to identify him as George Kabuthia Boro and found that he had no right to work in the UK and was working illegally. Consequently he was referred to the immigration services at the Home Office.
Enquiries made by the SIA investigators also found that Boro neither held an SIA licence, nor had he previously held one. This amounts to a Section 5 offence under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001.
Following this compliance inspection, SIA investigators later attempted to conduct interviews with Kinyanjui and Kalemera, on several occasions but both failed to attend.
On another occasion, SIA investigators requested information from the Kalemera, going to his home address to issue the request, but he failed to comply. This is a Section 19 offence under the PSIA (2001).
Wharf Guards Limited as a company, entered a guilty plea for providing unlicensed guards on 3 sites from June to August 2015. This is a Section 5 offence under the PSIA (2001).
Similarly, the director Kinyanjui plead guilty to 3 counts of providing unlicensed guards, a Section 5 offence and as a director he is liable under Section 23 of the PSIA (2001).
Kalemera plead guilty to a Section 19 offence under the PSIA (2001) for failing failed without reasonable excuse to produce any documents and information relating to the provision of security industry services by Wharf Guards Limited.
Sentencing of Wharf Guards Limited, Kinyanjui and Kalemera will take place on 8 September.
Also, Moran Security Services Ltd sentenced for falsely claiming to be an Approved Contractor
On 31 May 2016, Adam and Brendan Moran of Moran Security Services Ltd were sentenced for falsely claiming to be under the Approved Contractor Scheme (ACS) and supplying unlicensed security operatives, at Doncaster Magistrates Court.
Adam and Brendan Moran pleaded guilty on 4 May 2016, at a previous hearing, the court heard that SIA investigators carried out a site visit in September 2015 where they found three unlicensed security operatives. One was working on an expired licence and the other two were unlicensed. This included Adam Moran, the son of director Brendan Moran. As a result, Brendan Moran as director, was liable for the supply of unlicensed guards, a Section 5 offence and through consent or neglect, a Section 23 PSIA (2001) offence. The enquiry revealed that the deployment of the three unlicensed guards occurred over 6 months, between May and October 2015, on two sites and on nearly 100 separate occasions.
SIA investigators looked into this and found that from March 2014 to December 2015 and in November and December 2015, invoices were issued by the company which displayed the ACS logo. ACS is a voluntary system of inspection for providers of security services, and companies registered under ACS have satisfactorily meet a specific criteria and agreed standards. Registered ACS companies can advertise themselves as such and distinguish themselves within the private security industry. As Moran Security Services Ltd were not an ACS company this is a Section 16 offence under the PSIA (2001).
Through further investigation, it became clear that Moran Security Services Ltd had knowledge of ACS as they had applied to become an ACS company in May 2011. However they withdrew their application after providing inadequate information.
Moran Security Services Ltd was fined £2,000 for Section 5 and 16 offences under the PSIA (2001). The company was also ordered to pay costs of £3,049.08 and a surcharge of £120.
Both Adam and Brendan plead guilty to Section 5, 16 and 23 PSIA (2001) offences. Adam Moran was fined £1,000; ordered to pay costs of £3,000 and a victim surcharge of £100. Brendan Moran was fined £1,000; ordered to pay £3,000 in costs and a victim surcharge of £100.
SIA Investigations Manager, Nigel Davies noted that: “The Magistrate's recognition that the circumstances were serious in nature are welcomed and the sentences reflect this. The SIA is grateful for the assistance from the buyers of security in this case who were led to believe that Moran Security was a bona fide ACS company.
This case highlights the importance of the integrity of the Approved Contractor Scheme and that only those businesses who have achieved the standards required are permitted to use the ACS logo”.
Capital UK Services Ltd directors pay over £200k for deploying unlicensed guards
On 27 May 2016, Capital UK Services Ltd and directors Judith Wanyoike and Stephen Mungai were sentenced for supplying unlicensed security guards at Nottingham Magistrates.
The court heard that Capital UK Services Ltd provided eleven security operatives who were unlicensed, across two large contracts occasions. The first was between August 2013 and February 2014 when operatives were deployed on the contract to build the Nottingham City Tramway, a security contract worth about £2.2million.The second instance was between October 2013 and March 2014 on a contract with a nationwide refurbishment company.
At a hearing in July 2015 Mungai pleaded guilty to supplying unlicensed guards, a Section 5 offence under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001. As a director he was also found guilty of consent or neglect for employing unlicensed guards, a Section 23 PSIA (2001) offence. He received a community service order of 250 unpaid hours work concurrent for both offences and was ordered to pay £12,000 in costs.
Wanyoike also pleaded guilty in July 2015 to supplying unlicensed security operatives, a Section 5 offence and as director was guilty of a Section 23 offence under the PSIA (2001). She was also charged with a Section 19 offence; failing to supply information relating to an investigation and for providing false information; a Section 22 PSIA (2001) offence. Wanyoike received a community service order of 100 unpaid hours work ordered to pay £6,000 in costs and was disqualified as a company director for 5 years.
The company, which is now insolvent received a nominal fine of £1.00.
The case was transferred to Nottingham Crown Court for sentence and proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). A confiscation order was made for £206,370 against both parties. The Judge stated that the POCA confiscation reflected the role each director played in the company.
Consequently, Mungai was ordered to pay £172,370 and Wanyoike was ordered to pay £34,000. Both have been given 3 months to pay the figure in full. The judge also ordered that if Mungai and Wanyoike failed to pay the full amount, Mungai would receive a default prison sentence of 2 years and Wanyoike 9 months.
Investigations officer, Michael Bryan commented that:
“We are pleased with the sentencing and Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) ruling in this case. This strong conviction and POCA confiscation order highlights that security industry regulation exists to protect the general public and businesses who use contracted security services. The regulation also ensures the effectiveness of security businesses that operate within the industry.
We robustly regulates the Security Industry and will seek to prosecute those who chose to ignore the legislation in place”.
Director and manager of Paramount Monitoring and Response Ltd sentenced for SIA offences
On 25 May 2016, the director of Paramount Monitoring and Response Ltd, James Lovett and the operations manager, James Turner were sentenced at Nottingham Magistrates Court.
Their sentencing follows the guilty pleas Paramount Monitoring and Response Ltd and Lovett entered in previous hearings and Turner’s guilty verdict on 22 April 2016. It was during the April hearing that the court heard how Lovett and Turner provided unlicensed guards between November 2014 and January 2015. Their actions amounted to several offences under the Private Security Industry Act, PSIA (2001). The details of this case are available on the SIA news web pages.
Lovett was sentenced to a conditional discharge of 12 months for Section 5 and Section 23 of the PSIA (2001) and received another conditional discharge of 12 months for Section 19 of the PSIA 2001. He was also ordered to pay costs of £1000 and a victim surcharge of £15 to be paid within 56 days.
Turner who is already serving a 28-month prison term for £300,000 in VAT Fraud, received 14 days imprisonment for each PSIA (2001) offence; Section 5, Section 23 and Section 9. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £80 and costs of £500. This sentencing is the result of joint investigations between the SIA and HMRC.
Both Turner and Lovett are disqualified from being directors from previous offences.
The company, Paramount Monitoring and Response Ltd, was fined £1000 and ordered to pay costs of £4743 and a victim Surcharge of £100 within 28 days.
SIA Investigation Officer, Michael Bryan, commented on this case saying: "The SIA is pleased with the sentencing verdict of the court. Paramount Monitoring and Response Ltd, its director and operations manager had disregard for basic safeguards to ensure their contracts were fulfilled with SIA licensed operatives.
James Lovett as the director of the company also had a duty to disclose information regarding his company to the security industry regulator, he failed to fully comply with the request.
James Turner has been involved in the private security industry for a substantial period and has been prosecuted by the SIA before, when as a director of another security company he supplied unlicensed security operatives on contract. Yet in this case he continued a similar course of conduct with James Lovett demonstrating a disregard for the law through the use of unlicensed security operatives. Regulation within the private security industry exists to protect the public and those who work within the industry. The SIA robustly regulates the industry and will seek to prosecute those who chose to ignore the legislation in place."