Sentenced: Company bosses who supplied unlicensed security guards for housing development on former West Ham ground
PUBLISHED: 16:00 23 November 2018
Two company bosses has been given suspended jail terms for supplying unlicensed security guards at the housing development on the site of West Ham’s former Upton Park home.
Martin Makesa, 49, from Bettons Park, West Ham, the sole director of London Guard Security Limited (LGSL), and former company director Emily Kamau, 35, from Stratford, were sentenced yesterday after being convicted of an offence under the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
Snaresbrook Crown Court heard the discovery was made when regulator Security Industry Authority (SIA) investigated Makesa’s company.
The investigation was launched into LGSL because it was sub-contracted to provide SIA licensed security guards by Crystal Security Services Ltd Upton Park.
The guards raised suspicions after they fled the site, known as Upton Gardens, when SIA officers paid a visit to check their credentials.
A second visit found several guards working with expired SIA licences.
A more in depth probe found that a security guard employed by LGSL had given Makesa his expired SIA licence on the understanding that he would be given employment and would be re-licensed by the company.
Instead his personal details were used for a different, unlicensed security guard who worked on the site a number of times.
Kamau was a manager of the company at the time and Crystal had a contract with Barratt Homes, the developers of the new homes, to provide security while filming was taking place on the site.
Both were convicted last month and yesterday they each were given a three months jail sentence suspended for 18 months.
They must also do 80 hours community work and each pay £2,000 and a victim surcharge of £115.
In addition they are both banned from holding company directorships for five years.
The company, London Guard Security Limited, was ordered to pay £12,134 within a year.
Nathan Salmon, SIA criminal investigations manager, said: “The defendants in this case sought to satisfy a sub-contract by using unlicensed and ultimately untrained security operatives.
“This created uncertainty regarding the suitability of those operators to perform the role, and whether they had previous criminal offences and/or the right to work in the UK.”