SECURITY GUARD REPRIMANDED FOR FOLLOWING WOMAN TO BEACH, PRESSURING HER FOR PHONE NUMBER
A security guard who followed a woman to a beach and pressured her for her cellphone number has avoided having his licence cancelled.
The man has also managed to keep his name secret despite a licensing authority describing his actions as “inappropriately pushy” and the woman claiming she felt afraid.
According to a ruling by the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority two security guards employed by SEAL Security Ltd contracting to First Security approached the woman at a beach in June last year.
The woman says they asked if she was alone and where she lived, telling her she was pretty and should not be alone.
Both security guards asked her for her phone number and social media details multiple times which the woman says she felt obligated to provide to get them to leave her alone and that they made her feel afraid.
Both security guards, who were in uniform at the time, subsequently texted the woman so she blocked their numbers and called the police.
Police have since taken the issue up with the authority and applied to have one of the guard’s Certificate of Approval - or security licence - cancelled on the basis that his inappropriate behaviour amounted to misconduct.
The guard, whose name was redacted by the authority, said that he approached the woman only to ask if she wanted her picture taken as she was taking lots of photos at the beach.
He claimed that he and the other guard were not following her but rather she invited them to walk with her. He accepted that he did ask for her social media details and that their conversation centred on how hard it was to make friends in a new country - which he understood as her wishing to be friends with him.
He told the authority, which held a hearing into his conduct earlier this year, that neither he nor his colleague commented on the woman’s looks, where she lived or asked if she was alone.
He says at no stage did they get any sense that she was uncomfortable, or they would have immediately left and thought they were being helpful and friendly and had no ill intention.
The man says he did text the woman twice, firstly identifying himself and secondly to ask if she got home okay but didn’t contact her again when he didn’t receive a response.
After being contacted by police the man accepted that in hindsight because he was in a security uniform at the time it was not professional and could have made the woman feel uncomfortable.
Authority member Kate Lash said in her ruling released this week that the man was just 21 and had recently emigrated to New Zealand and had not undertaken any security training yet, despite patrolling a well-frequented area stopping the public from accessing walking tracks, a job that was experiencing some revolt from the public.
“Having carefully considered all of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that [the man] was aware that wearing his security uniform gave him some power and a presence over the general public,” Lash said.
“He was aware of this when he approached the complainant on the beach. I find that he misinterpreted the complainant’s interaction with him as positive, and his actions were inappropriately pushy.”
Lash said that overall his actions were unprofessional but ultimately the complainant had given him her cellphone number so it wasn’t inappropriate for him to have messaged her.
Lash said that the guard’s young age and his lack of understanding about appropriate behaviour in a western culture contributed to his actions.
“He was not yet familiar with New Zealand or Western culture and had an inflated sense of mana or standing given his role. Whilst this does not excuse him, it does provide some light on his actions,” she said.
Overall Lash made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct but noted that the man’s behaviour appeared to be out of character and he’d learned from his mistakes.
He was reprimanded, ordered to write a letter of apology to the woman and is to provide any future employer with a copy of the authority’s ruling.
Lash also noted that the other security guard appeared to be even more culpable and questioned why police had not pursued the cancellation of his licence.
Chetan Kumar, the owner of SEAL Security Ltd where the guard was employed, told NZME the man hasn’t worked for the company since December last year.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.