Our client was prosecuted for alleged breaches under section 3 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
It was alleged that our client, whilst not being the holder of the appropriate SIA licence continued to act as a Director of a Body Corporate at a time when an employee of the body, engaged in licensable conduct falling within the said Act.
We had initially acted for our client during the investigation stage of proceedings, our client having put forward his defence in interview; proceedings were still instigated by way of summons.
The private security industry covers a range of services from man guarding to alarm systems, wheel clamping to door supervising. The body tasked with the regulation of the private security industry is the Security Industry Authority (SIA). It is compulsory for persons working in the security industry to be licenced with the SIA to ensure that they are properly trained and qualified to do their job. A “frontline” licence is required for individuals undertaking “licensable activities”. A “non-frontline” licence is required for those who manage, supervise and or employ individuals (including Directors or the partners) who engage in licensable activities.
It was alleged that our client had incorporated his company as a private limited company and had appointed himself as a director of the same.
Sometime after incorporating the business it was alleged that our client’s SIA licence had lapsed and he had not renewed that licence but continued in his activity as a Director.
The Prosecution would rely upon documents from Companies House, annual returns from HMRC and also emails purporting to be from our client to customers describing himself as “Operational Director”.
We were able to obtain an extensive account from the Defendant himself in relation to his business activities and further at least three witnesses came forward to back up his account. Full witness statements were taken from these witnesses and the prosecution were notified that they would give evidence as part of the defence case. The defence also asked that four of the six prosecution witnesses attend Court as their evidence was not accepted and they would need to be cross examined at length.
After the prosecution case had concluded on the second day of Trial, the defence were able to make a submission of no case to answer to the Court based upon the evidence presented by the SIA.
The Court having considered the application concurred with the defence that the SIA had presented no evidence to show that an employee of the body was engaged in licensable conduct at the relevant time.
The Defendant had been a private paying client and we were able to secure a Defence Cost Order on his behalf to try to recoup his defence costs.
The lead lawyer on this case from Kangs Solicitors was Mr Sukhdip Randhawa.
Needless to say our client was absolutely ecstatic and commented about the professionalism of the defence team throughout.