At Cambridge Magistrates Court on 8 September 2016, the company (along with Richard Kinyanjui, director of Wharf Guards Limited) was sentenced for providing unlicensed security officers between June and August 2015. The operations manager, George Kalemera, was also sentenced for failing to supply information relating to the investigation.
The sentences follow an investigation in August last year, during which the SIA’s investigators made unannounced visits to three sites. At one site in Cambridge, an unlicensed security officer with no right to work in the UK was arrested and referred to the immigration services at the Home Office.
Following this targeted inspection, the SIA’s investigators attempted to conduct interviews with Kinyanjui and Kalemera on several occasions. Both failed to attend. Investigators also went to Kalemera’s home address to issue a request for information, but he failed to comply.
Offences and fines detailed
As a company, Wharf Guards Limited was fined £1,000 for each Section 5 offence relating to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 of providing unlicensed officers on three sites from June to August 2015. The company was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120 and costs of £6,000 totalling £7,120.
Kinyanjui was fined £500 for each count of providing unlicensed security officers, which is a Section 5 offence under the Private Security Industry Act 2001. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120 and costs of £3,000. The total fine was £4,620. The full amount is to be paid within one year.
Kalemera was fined £300 for failing to produce documents and information relating to the SIA’s investigation into Wharf Guards Limited. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £37 and costs of £1,000. The total fine was £1,337. The full amount is to be paid within six months.
Nathan Salmon, the SIA’s investigations manager, said: “We’re pleased with the strong penalties awarded against the company and defendants in this case. There are familiar traits to previous investigations we’ve undertaken in the East of England in recent years, and we will continue to prosecute those responsible for poor business practices. These defendants chose not to engage with the Regulator, but that proves not to be a barrier to prosecution.”