Lee-Staveley defended his actions
In a recent decision under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 (the Act), Alexander Lee-Staveley, a former security employee, has been found guilty of misconduct, resulting in the immediate cancellation of his security certificate. The decision stems from an incident in which Lee-Staveley brought an imitation firearm to his workplace and pointed it at a colleague during an argument, causing significant concern among his coworkers.
The complaint, filed by Jack Pini on behalf of Lee-Staveley's employer, alleges that Lee-Staveley’s actions were not only reckless but demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others. According to Pini, the incident occurred when Lee-Staveley drew an imitation firearm, commonly known as a BB gun, and pointed it at another staff member during a disagreement. Lee-Staveley resigned from his position before the internal investigation into the incident could be completed.
In his written statement, Lee-Staveley defended his actions, claiming that no one was at risk. He argued that he had drawn the BB gun in order to check its safety. However, the circumstances surrounding the incident told a different story. While Lee-Staveley stated that he prioritized safety in handling firearms, the fact remains that pointing a firearm—real or imitation—at another person is inherently dangerous and threatening, regardless of the intent. The employee who was targeted by the weapon felt threatened, and other staff members were sufficiently alarmed to send pictures of the situation to their manager in real time.
Pini, the complainant, emphasized that there is no acceptable or safe reason to have a gun at work in such circumstances, particularly when it is displayed in a way that could lead to intimidation or harm. The workplace where the incident occurred lacked a secure place to store the gun, and photographs sent by concerned staff showed that the BB gun was kept in a backpack or duffle bag in an area easily accessible to other workers, rather than in a locked case. This failure to properly secure the weapon added to the seriousness of the situation.
Despite Lee-Staveley’s claim that his actions were merely an attempt to ensure the firearm was in a safe condition, the decision-maker found that there was no justification for his behavior. Even if his original intention was to check the gun’s safety, the action of drawing the gun in the presence of colleagues—and particularly pointing it at a coworker—was reckless and highly inappropriate. The use of a firearm, even a non-lethal one like a BB gun, in such a manner constitutes misconduct that a reasonable person would consider disgraceful, wilful, or reckless.
As a result of this misconduct, Lee-Staveley’s Certificate of Approval (COA) was revoked, rendering him unsuitable for work in the security industry. The cancellation of his COA was deemed appropriate, given the nature of his actions. While the misconduct was isolated to a single event, the severity of the situation, which could have escalated into a criminal offence, rendered Lee-Staveley unfit for the responsibility required of security personnel.
This decision underscores the high standards of conduct expected from individuals working in security roles, particularly when it comes to the handling of weapons and maintaining a safe environment. Lee-Staveley’s actions not only endangered his colleagues but also displayed a significant lapse in judgment that ultimately led to the termination of his security certification.
The immediate cancellation of his COA reflects the serious consequences of misconduct in the security industry and serves as a reminder of the responsibility security employees bear to ensure the safety and well-being of others in their care.
To read official PSPLA Decision regarding the company, click on this link https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/2024-NZPSPLA-102.pdf