Brian Sims
Editor
Brian Sims
Editor
ON FRIDAY 11 November at Reading Magistrates’ Court, Muhammad Imran was prosecuted in his absence for failing to supply information to the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Imran, a company director from Maidenhead, was fined £440 and required to pay £1,953.50 in prosecution costs in addition to a £44 victim surcharge.
Imran’s company MNMFM Ltd was the supplier of security to an Oldham supermarket. On 28 August last year, the store’s retail manager noticed that the usual security operative was replaced by an unidentified man who was unlicensed. The manager notified the SIA and an investigation was initiated.
SIA investigators sent a request for information to Imran last December. He responded, but failed to provide the information that had been requested.
The SIA then sent a further request for information last February, which Imran ignored. He also failed to respond to a request to attend an interview under caution, which would have given him the opportunity to respond to the allegations. This left the SIA with no option but to prosecute Imran.
Jenny Hart, one of the SIA’s criminal investigation managers, explained: “Imran failed to engage with the SIA, whose purpose is to administer the private security licensing regime that protects the public. If there are unlicensed operatives working in supermarkets, the public are put at risk. I would like to thank the Oldham store’s management for their co-operation with this case.”
Further, Hart observed: “As a licence holder, Imran was reasonably expected to comply with any request for information from the regulator. He ignored such a request and has now ended up with significant costs, no SIA licence and a criminal record.”
The offence relating to the Private Security Industry Act 2001 mentioned above is in relation to Section 19 (failing to provide information relating to an investigation).
