• Paul Haywood Dowson was sentenced on Tuesday 12 September at Haverfordwest Magistrates’ Court.

ON TUESDAY 12 September Paul Haywood Dowson was sentenced for working illegally as a door supervisor at a licensed premises in South Wales. He received a 12-month Community Rehabilitation Order with 10 days Rehabilitation Activity Requirement (RAR), a fine of £500, and a Victim Surcharge of £114.00 contribution to prosecution costs of £2,587.50

Dowson worked as a security operative at a licensed premises in Tenby between November 2021 and June 2022. Dyfed Powys Police officers and a licensing officer observed him working as a door supervisor at the premises on 30 April 2022, 29 May 2022 and 04 June 2022.

On each occasion Paul Dowson was observed carrying out the duties of a door supervisor at the door of the premises. He was dressed predominantly in black, displaying an armband licence card holder and a coat bearing the text ‘security’ displayed on it. When he was seen on 29 May 2022, police officers spoke to him, and he confirmed to them that he was working at the premises.

He had held two previous door supervisor licences, but his last licence had expired on 18 March 2022. Paul Dowson continued working at the premises until the Designated Premises Supervisor became aware that he was no longer licensed in June 2022. His employment was subsequently terminated.

Paul Dowson was formally interviewed on 29 October 2022 by the Security Industry Authority (SIA). He agreed that he was standing outside of the door of the premises as described by the police officers but maintained that he was not engaged as a door supervisor at the premises.

He suggested that he was working at the premises in a non-designated role only, in relation to CCTV installations, but this claim was refuted by the premises management.

The bench stated at the sentencing:

“This matter was a significant issue as a door supervisor is a person with (responsibility for) the well-being, regulation, and control of members of the public, you knew you did not have a valid licence but carried on over a sustained period until stopped. That shows a disregard for the law and for those you were meant to be protecting.”

Mark Chapman, one of the SIA’s Criminal Investigations Managers said: “Paul Dowson’s case is an example of what happens when individuals choose to work when not licensed to do so. Dowson continued to work without a licence, putting the security of the venue’s patrons and staff at risk. As a result, he now has a conviction with substantial costs to pay.

“I’d like to acknowledge the contribution made to the investigation by our law enforcement partner, Dyfed Powys Police. They were exemplary in supporting the SIA to bring this case to court. This and other similar cases in the region have further strengthened the regulated security industry by ensuring that those providing security to the public are licensed to do so”.

The Courtroom Proceedings and Its Implications

In a courtroom saga that has captivated many locals, Dowson faced a challenging legal battle, further complicated by his personal struggles with ADHD.

Early on in the proceedings, Dowson posed a pointed question to PC Lewis, the licensing officer. He questioned why PC Lewis didn’t act upon witnessing an alleged offence right in front of him. When met with hesitation from PC Lewis, the magistrate swiftly intervened, marking Dowson’s line of questioning as irrelevant.

Throughout the trial, Dowson employed rigorous cross-examinations in an effort to challenge the credibility of the witnesses. Nonetheless, he encountered a series of setbacks. The chair of the bench repeatedly deemed his queries as ‘irrelevant,’ disrupting the flow of Dowson’s defence strategy.

The testimonies of PC Cranmer and PC Priestley brought additional complexity. Both officers recalled encounters with Dowson but offered contrasting narratives. PC Cranmer recounted her evening patrol on the 29th of April, during which she and PC Priestley allegedly spotted Dowson outside the 5 Arches pub. According to her, Dowson was clad in a black jacket and a pink security armband, a description that became a focal point in her testimony.

Despite Dowson’s attempts to pinpoint inconsistencies in the officers’ accounts, his cross-examinations were frequently cut short by the chair of the bench. These interruptions, combined with Dowson’s declared ADHD – a condition known to affect focus and impulsivity – seemed to hamper his ability to mount a robust defence.

The magistrates declared Dowson guilty: The emphasis was placed on the potential public safety threats associated with Dowson’s alleged actions. The verdict seemed to underscore the severity of the offence, with the chair indicating potential sentencing at the higher tariff range.

The subsequent sentencing hearing proved to be equally challenging for Dowson. A report, presented by Julie Norman from the probation service, shed light on Dowson’s health. Detailing his cardiac, pulmonary, and ADHD diagnoses, the report argued for leniency, given his health concerns and the challenges posed by ADHD in comprehending legal proceedings.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favour of a 12-month probation for Dowson. However, the financial penalties were substantial: a total sum of £3,201.50, which includes a fine, a victim surcharge, and costs to the Security Industry Authority (SIA). Given Dowson’s current reliance on universal credit due to his health challenges, the court mandated monthly payments of £200.

In a post-verdict revelation to The Herald, Dowson unveiled intriguing findings from an FOI request to the SIA. The data, covering prosecutions and sentences from 2017-2021, revealed that for offences similar to Dowson’s, no past sentence had exceeded a low-end fine. This stark contrast to Dowson’s own penalties prompts questions about the trial’s fairness and potential inconsistencies in the legal system’s approach.

The trial, with its intricate web of testimonies, personal challenges, and legal nuances, paints a vivid portrait of the complexities inherent in the British judicial process, especially when a local court is dealing with a local controversial figure.