The company had pleaded guilty to the offences on 3rd November 2008. In addition, Securiplan will pay the Security Industry Authority (SIA) GBP 550,000 to meet most of the costs of the investigation and prosecution. The SIA offered no evidence against a director of the company and he was therefore acquitted.

Speaking on behalf of the company, Andrew Mitchell QC said at an earlier hearing,

"Securiplan apologises for the continued deployment of unlicensed guards for up to six months after the enforcement date, which had the effect of undermining the regulatory regime that was designed to protect the public."

Before sentencing, His Honour Judge Rivlin QC said,

"Knowing perfectly well that deployment was against the law, in a period of approximately 5 months, Securiplan deployed many unlicensed operatives. This was, I am satisfied, the consequence of a deliberate commercial decision arrived at in the hope and expectation that the heavily stretched SIA would take no action against them. These counts constitute wholesale breaches of the Act.

This is a particularly serious matter as Securiplan were amongst the leaders in the field. Any such policy had grave consequences not merely in terms of deployment, but in undermining the new licensing regime. In some cases, Securiplan entered into new contracts, or rolled over existing contracts, knowing the inevitable outcome would be that those companies would be recipients of unlicensed guards.

The SIA has, in my judgement, quite rightly not prosecuted individuals who were sent out unlicensed - they have prosecuted the real offenders. Those individuals should never have been placed in such an invidious position by their employer, who was in a position of trust with their employees. Certain employees were treated in a disrespectful manner.

The widespread nature of offending and continuance over time has resulted in this being an obviously serious case. The gravity of the situation is only exemplified by the fact that 20 major companies, including companies of national renown, chose to terminate their contracts with Securiplan.

In consequence of its action, this company has already suffered very substantial financial losses due to contracts being lost or terminated by customers. I am satisfied that this ran into millions of pounds of lost business. I must stress that it was, in my opinion, entirely self-inflicted."

Taking into account mitigating factors such as; the company's financial losses, the company's public apology to the SIA, the difficulties of the transition to licensing, previous good character and the length of the investigation, Judge Rivlin said,

"I must look at the overall scale of offending which was serious and financially driven. It is important that companies in this industry should appreciate the seriousness of the legislation and the seriousness of the failure to comply."

During earlier proceedings, the judge made clear that, in his view, the SIA had acted with complete propriety in this case, "living" by each of the five principles of good regulation. He said that the SIA had followed its own principle of bringing the prosecution only as a last resort.

Andy Drane, SIA deputy chief executive said,

"The judge has made clear that this was serious offending and prosecution was justified. This guilty plea and the sentences imposed by the Court bring to an end a long process of investigation and proceedings in which the SIA has been subjected to fierce and relentless legal challenges.

As a result of these findings, the regulatory regime has been strengthened and this enhances the protection of the public. I am pleased that, during this case, our power to prosecute generally has been confirmed and that it was found we have acted with complete propriety.

This brings this matter to a close and we will move forward constructively recognising that these events occurred in 2006.

I wish to pay tribute to the commitment and resilience of the SIA investigators in this case and to the quality of advice and support given to us by our legal advisors."