Barred security director is found guilty of working without a licence and convicted again

 
Alan Chua – When the time is right… In his first blog for Infologue.com, Alan Chua of Concorde Security Pte discusses his views on technology as part of the private security industry.  Read on »
David Ward David Ward – Modern society and modern targets In his latest blog for Infologue.com, David Ward of Ward Security discuss modern society and targets. Read on »
Sara Taylor, Deputy Managing Director at Incentive Lynx Sara Taylor – Balancing the Gender Gap in Security In her latest blog , Sara Taylor of Incentive Lynx discusses the gender gap within the security industry. Read on »
Friday, 17 November 2017

Barred security director is found guilty of working without a licence and convicted again

On 14 September 2017, at Llandudno Magistrates Court, Mark Pursglove and was found guilty of working without a licence, Rachel Williams for aiding and abetting Mr Pursglove, and Alan Williams was found guilty for providing false information. This is not the first time the Security Industry Authority (SIA) has prosecuted Mark Pursglove.

In February 2016, Mark Pursglove along with his company, Mark Pursglove Security Limited, pleaded guilty at Holyhead Magistrates Court to supplying unlicensed security operatives and providing false information to the SIA.

As a result, the SIA revoked Pursglove’s licence to prevent him from working or operating in the private security industry.

This meant Pursglove could not personally carry out any licensable activities; nor could he manage, supervise or be a director of any company supplying security operatives to licensable roles.

However, on 25 February 2016, Mark Pursglove formed a new security company called MP Security Services Ltd. It operated from the same offices and provided the same staff to the same contracts. Intelligence sent to the SIA pointed to the fact that Mark Pursglove was the acting director of the new company and the sole shareholder.

The SIA investigated MP Security Services Ltd, and found that Mark Pursglove had visited these customers’ premises shortly after his conviction, to offer reassurances. He had explained that the new company would continue to supply security operatives and that the terms of the contract would remain the same. He had also stated that he would not be involved in the business.

During the investigation, the SIA discovered that Mark Pursglove had listed one of his security guards as a company director without the guard’s permission and later appointed a friend, Alan Williams, as a director. He also appointed his partner, Rachel Williams, to undertake a managerial and supervisory role. It became clear that Mark Pursglove was trying to disguise his role in the company.

SIA investigators suspected that both appointments were false and requested information from Alan Williams, as he was the named director. He provided this information but the SIA doubted its validity and believed that Mark Pursglove continued to run the company himself.

As a result, the SIA gathered further evidence and prosecuted Mark Pursglove, Rachel Williams and Alan Williams. They all pled not guilty; however, all were found guilty.

Mark Pursglove was found guilty of acting as an unlicensed manager or supervisor and of acting as an unlicensed security director. This is a section 3 offence under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001.

Rachel Williams was found guilty for aiding and abetting Mark Pursglove to commit the above offences.

Their sentencing was adjourned and will take place at Caernarfon Magistrates Court on 12 October 2017.

Alan Williams was found guilty of providing false information. He was fined £420 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £42 and costs of £2750.

Nathan Salmon, the Head of SIA Criminal Investigations, said: “Mark Pursglove continued to operate as a provider of security services despite his previous conviction and knowing full well we had revoked his licence. He tried to disguise his own involvement within the company by using others, placing them in key roles within the company and changing the name of his business.

“Using individuals as a front will not protect businesses from prosecution; the Private Security Industry Act specifically interprets the role and responsibilities of directors and the SIA will assess personal liability, meaning those guilty of offences cannot hide behind others.

“This strong conviction highlights the fact that security regulation exists in order to protect those who use contracted security services, as well as the general public. It also helps to ensure the effectiveness of security businesses that operate within the industry.”

SIA Website


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Interconnective Security Products