Gary Hyde v The Queen

Gary Hyde v The Queen

The custodial sentence and disqualification order were severe but not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the deliberate and large-scale evasion of export controls and use of corporate vehicles for criminality. The forfeiture order was unlawful as the firearms were owned by Jago Ltd, not the applicant, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil; thus, the applicant was not in possession for the purposes of s.52(1) Firearms Act 1968.

Parties
Appellant: Gary Hyde; Respondent: The Queen; Interested Party: Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence, Disqualification Order, and Forfeiture Order
Outcome
Appeal against sentence and disqualification order refused; appeal against forfeiture order allowed.
Legal Topics
Export Control, Arms Trade, Proceeds of Crime, Company Directors Disqualification, Forfeiture of Firearms, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Sentencing, Proportionality, Possession in Law
Criminal Law Company Law Human Rights Law Export Control Arms Trade Proceeds of Crime Company Directors Disqualification Forfeiture of Firearms +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Hyde

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Chief Constable, Lincolnshire Police

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence, Disqualification Order, and Forfeiture Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the custodial sentence and disqualification order were excessive or wrong in principle
  2. 2 Whether the forfeiture and destruction order for firearms was lawful and proportionate
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was in possession of the firearms within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968

Ratio Decidendi

The custodial sentence and disqualification order were severe but not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive given the deliberate and large-scale evasion of export controls and use of corporate vehicles for criminality. The forfeiture order was unlawful as the firearms were owned by Jago Ltd, not the applicant, and there was no basis to pierce the corporate veil; thus, the applicant was not in possession for the purposes of s.52(1) Firearms Act 1968.

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence and disqualification order refused; appeal against forfeiture order allowed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal against custodial sentence and disqualification order refused.
  • Leave to appeal against forfeiture order granted and the order quashed.