| (1) |
An employer of in-house security officers who has been found guilty of improper conduct in terms of the procedures contemplated in regulation 29, is subject to the following penalties— |
| (a) |
a warning or a reprimand; |
| (aA) |
withdrawal as accredited training establishment; |
| (b) |
a fine not exceeding R1 000 000,00 which is payable to the Authority; |
| (c) |
publication of appropriate details of the conviction of improper conduct and any penalty imposed; or |
| (d) |
any combination of the above. |
| (2) |
The penalty contemplated in subregulation (1)(As), (b), (c) or (d) may be suspended on any condition that is reasonably likely to promote compliance with this Code by the employer of in-house security officers. |
| (3) |
In addition to any other relevant fact, the following must be considered and properly taken into account in imposing any penalty contemplated in this regulation— |
| (a) |
the gravity and nature of the improper conduct, including the duration or frequency of the improper conduct; |
| (b) |
the known relevant circumstances of the employer of in-house security officers, and such other relevant circumstances as the employer of in-house security officers may prove to exist; |
| (c) |
the national interest as well as the interest of the public; |
| (d) |
the risk posed by the improper conduct to the rights or legitimate interests of any person, and any other remedies available to any person affected by the improper conduct; |
| (e) |
any previous conviction of the employer of in-house security officers of improper conduct in terms of this Code; |
| (f) |
the financial or other benefit or likely benefit obtained or that may be obtained by the employer of in-house security officers through the commission of improper conduct; and |
| (g) |
any actual or potential harm caused by the employer of in-house security officers through the commission of improper conduct. |
| (4) |
In imposing a penalty contemplated in subregulation (1)(b) on a security service provider who has previously been convicted of improper conduct in terms of this Code, and subject to the monetary limit prescribed in subregulation (1)(b), the director or presiding officer as the case may be must set the fine at an amount which is at least equal to the aggregate of any fines imposed for such previous convictions, unless the security service provider can satisfy the presiding officer why it would be unjust or inequitable in the circumstances to do so. |
[Regulation 27 substituted by regulation 5 of Notice No. R. 791, GG 40116, dated 1 July 2016]
Copyright Act, 1978
