A security guard who worked illegally at a Cardiff shelter housing vulnerable women has been convicted after failing to attend court for a second time.
On Friday 2 July, Dale Lusty was found guilty in his absence at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court of working without a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence at the Wallich Clifford Community Hostel.
On the night of 1 September 2020, South Wales Police were called to the hostel. They discovered that Lusty, who was working there as a security guard, did not possess an SIA licence. They informed the SIA, who began an investigation.
Lusty had responded to an urgent social media post sent by NIA Security, operated by Ricky Moloney, asking for licensed security to cover a shift at the hostel. Lusty told Moloney that he was sourcing a licensed operative, yet turned up to work the shift himself. The SIA later interviewed Moloney, who admitted that he had not carried out a thorough licence check of Dale Lusty. Moloney consequently pleaded guilty on 4 June at Cardiff Magistrates’ Court of supplying unlicensed security to the hostel. The SIA brought both prosecutions.
Following the meeting with Moloney, the SIA made repeated attempts to interview Lusty who failed to respond. Lusty was handed a reduced sentence due to his financial circumstances as he is in receipt of benefits. He is already paying off £2,500 in fines. The court ordered him to pay £180, as well as court costs of £467.50 and a victim surcharge of £34.
Lusty formerly held a licence for three years between 2007 and 2010. The SIA revoked his licence as they discovered he had criminal convictions that he had failed to declare. He made a subsequent licence application in May 2018, which the SIA refused
Nathan Salmon, the SIA’s Criminal Investigations Manager said:
Mr Lusty was formerly licensed by the SIA, and was fully aware of the requirement to be licensed and that he had himself been refused a licence. The hostel where Mr Lusty worked illegally is a homeless shelter, particularly for vulnerable women; exactly the kind of people that the licensing regime is designed to protect. This case also highlights the importance of businesses undertaking adequate vetting checks, the lack of which has led to a conviction of this security business and its director. This should act as a warning to other security businesses that we expect them to prioritise vetting and labour controls.