Commissioner for Fair Trading v Walton

In the case of Commissioner for Fair Trading v Walton, the respondent, a 29-year-old static security guard, was convicted of the offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm in April 2014. This conviction led to the respondent resigning from his job and the applicant seeking to suspend his security licence pending an application to cancel it. The matter was initially heard on 4 July 2014, and the respondent's licence was suspended. The respondent was out of work as a security guard for one week at the time and had taken steps to enroll in anger management and relationship training courses.

The legal issue before the tribunal was whether the respondent should retain his security licence, given his conviction, and if so, what conditions should be imposed. The tribunal considered the evidence of the respondent's excellent character, his efforts to overcome his problems, and the fact that this offence was a one-off incident in an otherwise tempestuous relationship. The tribunal also noted that the respondent had never taken his personal problems to work and had always managed to control himself. After considering all the evidence, the tribunal decided to impose certain conditions on the respondent's security licence, allowing him to retain it.

The tribunal's reasoning was based on the fact that the respondent had no prior convictions of any kind and had recently ended a tumultuous relationship where he had been assaulted on occasions. Despite his problems at home, his employer said that he never let those problems intrude into the workplace. The tribunal formed the view that it is unlikely that the respondent will reoffend and that the proposed conditions for his security licence would give the community ample protection. The tribunal also noted that it is very much in the public interest for people to be in full-time employment and that the respondent, who had been an exemplary static security guard for nine years, deserved a chance to continue as such after serving a short suspension of three weeks to reflect the serious, but out of character, offending behaviour for which he had been convicted.

In conclusion, the tribunal imposed specific conditions on the respondent's security licence, allowing him to retain it. The conditions included that the respondent advise the applicant of the name and contact details of his employer and any change of employer within 7 days of that change; that he not work as a static guard prior to providing the applicant with a letter from his employer advising that it is aware of the circumstances of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm in February 2014 that resulted in the respondent's conviction in April 2014; and that the respondent is to advise the applicant in writing within 7 days of being charged with or convicted of an offence.