Peterborough security director found guilty

18 May 09

By Anthony Hildebrand

The ex-director of a Peterborough security firm has been given an 18-month community punishment order and ordered to pay £20,000 in costs after pleading guilty to 33 offences.

During the hearing at Peterborough Magistrates Court, Paul John O’Mahony, who had acted as director of Central Security (East Anglia) Ltd, pleaded guilty to 33 counts of supplying or employing unlicensed security guards (under Section 5(1) of the Private Security Industry Act 2001) between November 2007 and February 2008.

This was by way of Section 23 (1) of the Act which provides for personal criminal responsibility for company officers in certain situations.

In court, it was explained that of Central Security’s 43 employees, 36 did not hold SIA licences at the time. The premises they guarded were Cambridge City Council and Peterborough City Council sites and markets, and one employee was involved in transferring cash from council premises.

District Judge Sheraton took the view that a high level Community Punishment Order was appropriate, stating that the offences were clearly too serious to be dealt with by way of a fine.

O’Mahony received an 18-month Community Punishment Order with the requirement to undertake 220 hours unpaid work. He was also ordered to pay £20,000 in costs.

Nigel Davies, an SIA head of investigation, said: “This is an excellent result, and shows how seriously the courts take such offences. We hope this sends a clear and strong message to security companies that breaches of the Act will not be tolerated.

“We urge buyers of security services to check the Register of Licence Holders on our website to ensure the security operatives they use are fully compliant with the law.”

Readers' comments

Steve Goodwin 22 May 09
A council saves their rate-payers a few quid (the excuse) by employing a cut-price operator breaking the rules, and is unaware of the fact, or simply turning a blind eye; while some happily fine us for putting our bin out on the wrong day.

What happened to the much vaunted Approved Contractor Scheme if even the local Government authorities turns its back and continues to use operators based on price?

How many others are out there doing the same thing?

Enforcement for 33 offences equates to 20k costs and 220 hours unpaid work. So just over 600 pounds for employing unlicenced security officers who had no training (costs) nor licence (more costs) which by my reckoning saved a lot more than the 600 pounds per offence, plus no doubt saved even more money in wages by paying less for the Security Officers he employed also.

Once again the message is loud and clear. Run a professional and accredited company by jumping through the hoops, paying the price of licensing, training, auditing and associated costs and see the profit margins eaten away.

Set up a company and run it as you like getting away with murder, get employed and paid for un-trained staff by the very people who should know better and if your extremely unlucky you might have to pay back a mediocre sum and wear an orange day-glo vest for a few hours.

I would imagine that similar Directors (whether shadows or not) are seriously quaking in their boots right now (not)

Post your own comment on this story


del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit	Google	Newsvine

News Ticker:

Click on images

External weblinks

Related articles

Peterborough security director found guilty

Readers' comments