Security Worker's License Suspended Following Violent Convictions

By S Hussain · 1 Oct, 2025 05:00 AM

WELLINGTON, A New Zealand security worker, Anieta Leijen, has had her certificate of approval (COA) suspended for 16 months after a government authority ruled her recent convictions for violent offenses made her unsuitable to work in the industry. The decision, handed down by the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, allows Leijen a path to eventually return to work but only after she completes her court sentences and meets strict conditions aimed at demonstrating her rehabilitation. 

The case stems from a police application to cancel Leijen’s license after she was convicted on August 13, 2025, on three charges of violence: assault, threatening to kill, and suffocating, as well as breaching a protection order. She was sentenced to four months of community detention and one year of supervision. Police argued these were disqualifying convictions that warranted the cancellation of her license to work in security. 

In her defense, Leijen acknowledged the convictions but challenged the facts, arguing she was not suitable for cancellation. She claimed she did not assault the primary victim, who was her sister, and stated that her sister’s injuries were actually caused by her sister’s partner. She also said that this is not the first time her sister has blamed her for things she did not do. Leijen stated that she only pleaded guilty to the charges on legal advice to avoid the risk of a two-year prison sentence, as she is the primary caregiver for her young children. She conceded that she understood a guilty plea could cancel her security license. 

The decision of the Authority on September 15, 2025, clearly refused to reconsider the validity of Leijen's guilty plea and convictions. The adjudicator noted that the court had already accepted the plea and that the punishment imposed suggested that the judge did not believe

that her role in the assault was small. The decision further identified a past 2021 conviction for assault (family violence) as further grounds for disqualification. 

Under section 62 of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010, convictions for violent offences are mandatory grounds of disqualification. The Authority's essential task was to find out whether, owing to these convictions, Leijen was no longer a suitable person to hold a certificate. 

The Authority's view is that a person who is currently serving a sentence for violent crimes is not suitable to work in a role that requires a high degree of trust and responsibility, such as a private security position. “I do not consider that someone serving a sentence of community detention and supervision for offences of violence is suitable to be working in private security,” the decision stated. 

However, instead of granting the police request for a full cancellation, the Authority opted to extend an existing suspension order on Leijen’s certificate. It will now remain suspended until January 21, 2027, which is when the certificate is set to expire. 

The ruling outlines a clear, conditional path for Leijen to potentially return to work. She can apply to have the suspension lifted after August 13, 2026, when her sentence of supervision ends, or she can apply for a renewal of her certificate before it expires in January 2027. In any new application, the police will have the opportunity to oppose it. 

For her application to be successful, Leijen must provide evidence to the Authority that: ● She has completed her community detention and supervision sentences without any breaches. 

● She has completed an anti-violence course and any mandated counseling. ● She has a formal job offer from a licensed security company that confirms it is aware of her conviction history but is still willing to employ her. 

● She has not come to police attention again for any violent or antisocial behavior. 

The decision highlights the fact that it is now up to Leijen to show that she has been rehabilitated and could be trusted to work in a position of authority before her license would be reinstated. This case highlights the high standards of suitability applied to the New Zealand security sector, in which holding a position of authority is dependent on personal conduct. The Authority’s decision shows that violent behavior is taken seriously in roles based on public trust, while also allowing a clear path for possible reinstatement through rehabilitation.