At Cambridge Magistrates Court on 8 September 2016, the company along with Richard Kinyanjui, director of Wharf Guards Limited, were sentenced to providing unlicensed officers between June and August 2015. The operations manager, George Kalemera was also sentenced for failing to supply information relating to the investigation.
Their sentences follow an investigation in August 2015, during which SIA investigators made unannounced visits to three sites. At one site in Cambridge, an unlicensed 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, SIA investigators attempted to conduct interviews with Kinyanjui and Kalemera on several occasions. Both failed to attend. SIA investigators also went to Kalemera’s home address to issue a request for information, but he failed to comply.
Wharf Guards Limited, as a company, were fined £1,000 for each Section 5 PSIA offence (2001) of providing unlicensed officers on 3 sites, from June to August 2015. They were 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 officers, a Section 5 PSIA (2001) offence. He was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £120 and costs of £3,000. The total was £4,620 and the full amount is to be paid within 1 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 was £1,337 and the full amount is to be paid within 6 months.
Nathan Salmon, SIA Investigations Manager, said: “The Authority is pleased with the strong penalties awarded against the company and defendants in this case. There are familiar traits to previous investigations we have undertaken in 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”.