As far as the security guarding community is concerned, the verdict in the case of Regina versus Securiplan plc was one of the most eagerly awaited occurrences of 2008. One of the industry’s foremost and best respected contractors, Securiplan pleaded guilty to specific offences at Southwark Crown Court and, on Friday 7 November, His Honour Judge Rivlin QC gave his verdict.
In addition to meeting the cost of 19 fines of GB pound 5,000 per count for deploying unlicensed security staff during 2006, the company has agreed to pay the Security Industry Authority (SIA) some GB pound 550,000 in order to cover most of the costs of the investigation and the subsequent prosecution.
Speaking on behalf of Securiplan plc, Andrew Mitchell QC had said at an earlier hearing: “Securiplan plc apologises for the continued deployment of unlicensed officers for up to six months after the enforcement date, which had the effect of undermining the regulatory regime that was designed to protect the public.”
The Regulator offered no evidence against a director of Securiplan plc, who was therefore acquitted.
Deliberate commercial decision
Prior to sentencing, His Honour Judge Rivlin QC commented: “Knowing perfectly well that deployment was against the law, in a period of approximately five months Securiplan deployed many unlicensed operatives. This was, I am satisfied, the consequence of a deliberate commercial decision arrived at in the hope and expectation that the heavily stretched Security Industry Authority would take no action against them. These counts constitute wholesale breaches of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
“This is a particularly serious matter as Securiplan was among the leaders in its field. Any such policy had grave consequences not merely in terms of deployment, but in undermining the new licensing regime. In some cases, Securiplan entered into new contracts, or rolled over existing contracts knowing the inevitable outcome would be that those companies would be recipients of unlicensed officers.
“The Security Industry Authority has, in my judgement, quite rightly not prosecuted individuals who were sent out unlicensed – they have prosecuted the real offenders. Those individuals should never have been placed in such an invidious position by their employer, who was in a position of trust with its employees. Certain employees were treated in a disrespectful manner.”
An “obviously serious case”
His Honour Judge Rivlin QC opined: “The widespread nature of offending and continuance over time has resulted in this being an obviously serious case. The gravity of the situation is only exemplified by the fact that 20 major companies, including companies of national renown, chose to terminate their contracts with Securiplan.
“In consequence of its action, this company has already suffered very substantial financial losses due to contracts being lost or terminated by customers. I am satisfied that this ran into millions of pounds of lost business. I must stress that this was, in my opinion, entirely self-inflicted.”
Taking into account mitigating factors such as the company’s financial losses, a public apology to the SIA, the difficulties of the transition to licensing, previous good character and the length of the investigation, Judge Rivlin QC added: “I must look at the overall scale of offending, which was serious and financially driven. It’s important that companies in this industry should appreciate the seriousness of the legislation and the seriousness of any failure to comply with it.”
Principles of good regulation
During earlier proceedings, the Judge explained in detail that the SIA had followed its own principle of bringing the prosecution only as a last resort, “living” by each of the five Government principles (proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted) of good regulation.
Speaking about the judgement, Andy Drane – the SIA’s deputy chief executive – stated: “The Judge has made clear that this was serious offending and prosecution was justified. This guilty plea and the sentences imposed by the Court bring to an end a long process of investigation and proceedings during which the Regulator has been subjected to fierce and relentless legal challenges.”
Drane went on to comment: “As a result of these findings, the regulatory regime has been strengthened and this enhances the protection of the public. I’m pleased that, during this case, our power to prosecute generally has been confirmed and that it was found we have acted with complete propriety.”
In conclusion, Drane pointed out: “This brings the matter to a close, and we will move forward constructively recognising that these events occurred in 2006.
“I wish to pay tribute to the commitment and resilience of the SIA investigators in this case, and to the quality of advice and support given to us by our legal advisors.”
