Acts Online
GT Shield

Private Security Industry Regulation Act, 2001 (Act No. 56 of 2001)

Regulations

Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers, 2003

Chapter 5 : Provisions regarding Improper Conduct, the Enforcement of the Code and Other Matters relating thereto, and General Powers

30. Rules of evidence and related matters

 

(1)
(a) For the purposes of the enforcement of this Code through an enquiry, the rules of evidence in this regulation and in the Improper Conduct Enquiries Regulations will apply.
(b) The rules of evidence contained in the Improper Conduct Enquiries Regulations are incorporated into this Code.

 

(2) For the purposes of imposing upon any person who is a security service provider or an employer of inhouse security officers, liability for improper conduct in terms of this Code, any act is deemed to have been performed by such security service provider or employer of in-house security officers if—
(a) it is performed by or on the instruction or with the permission, express or implied, given by a person who—
(i) performs executive or managing functions in respect of the security service provider or employer of in-house security officers;
(ii) is a director, member, partner, trustee, administrator or person in control, as the case may be, of the security service provider or employer of in-house security officers; or
(iii) is an employee of the security service provider or employer of in-house security officers; and
(b) the person contemplated in paragraph (a) acts—
(i) in the exercise of his or her powers;
(ii) in the performance of his or her functions or duties;
(iii) within the scope of his or her employment; or
(iv) in furthering or endeavouring to further the interests of the security service provider or employer of in-house security officers.

 

(3) A security service provider and an employer of in-house security officers may be found guilty of improper conduct at an enquiry if the presiding officer is of the opinion that on the basis of all the evidence tendered at the enquiry, the prosecutor has proved the charge of improper conduct on a balance of probabilities.

 

(4) If, at an enquiry, an element of the improper conduct in question consists of a finding or decision by a court of law or by any other tribunal or an official of the State, a certificate purporting to have been signed by the director recording such finding or decision and the source on which the information in the certificate is based, will be prima facie evidence of such a finding or decision.

 

(5) The provisions of subregulation (4) do not exclude any other evidence that may be adduced by the prosecutor in terms of law to prove a charge of improper conduct or any element of improper conduct and do not derogate from the power of a presiding officer to make a finding regarding any element of improper conduct on any such evidence.

 

(6)
(a) The provisions of the Computer Evidence Act, 1983 (Act No. 57 of 1983) are applicable, with the necessary changes, to an enquiry.
(b) For the purposes of the application of the Computer Evidence Act, 1983 in terms of paragraph (a), the Authority is deemed to be a "public institution" as contemplated in the said act.

 

(7) If in any enquiry it is an element of the improper conduct that a person referred to in the charge sheet rendered a security service or was used or made available to render a security service and the prosecutor shows that the respondent is a security business and employed the person in question at the relevant time, it will be accepted that the said person rendered the security service or was used or made available to render the security service as alleged in the charge sheet, unless there is evidence to the contrary which raises a reasonable doubt.

 

(8) If in any enquiry the prosecutor produces a document provided to the Authority by the respondent, an official or employee of the respondent, a person apparently in the employ of the respondent, or by a person apparently assisting the respondent in his or her business or activities, or if the document was found by an inspector at premises apparently used by the respondent in connection with the rendering of a security service or the administration or management of the rendering of a security service or security officers, the document will be proof of the information contained therein to the extent that the prosecutor expressly relies on the truthfulness or accuracy of such information, unless there is evidence to the contrary which raises a reasonable doubt.

 

(9) If in any enquiry the prosecutor produces evidence of an oral statement made to an inspector by the respondent, an official of the respondent, a person apparently in the employ of the respondent, or by a person apparently assisting the respondent in his or her business or activities, the oral statement will be proof of the information contained in such oral statement to the extent that the prosecutor expressly relies on the truthfulness or accuracy of such information, unless there is evidence to the contrary which raises a reasonable doubt.

 

(10) Evidence submitted at an enquiry which has been obtained in an unlawful manner, is admissible at an enquiry unless the admission thereof would render the enquiry materially unfair or would be prejudicial to the public interest.

 

(11) No provision or penalty contained in this Code, with the exception of criminal proceedings in respect of an offence contemplated in regulation 28, may be construed as indemnifying any person against a prosecution, conviction or imposition of a penalty in respect of any offence in a court of law.

 

(12) No criminal proceedings or any other legal proceedings of whatever nature, whether such proceedings are anticipated, pending or concluded will indemnify a security service provider or an employer of in-house security officers against an enquiry, a conviction of improper conduct or the imposition of a penalty in respect of improper conduct in terms of the procedures contemplated in regulation 29.