Further to the news about the conviction and sentencing of Lincolnshire farmer/gamekeeper John Bryant for multiple offences at Grange Farms, West Ashby in October 2022, relating to an investigation into the illegal persecution of birds of prey (see here, here and here), Lincolnshire Police’s Rural Crime Team has provided some information about the revocation of Bryant’s shotgun and firearms certificates.
“We have been asked about his firearms/shotgun certificates.
“As a direct result of this investigation. Both from matters revolving around the storage and security of firearms and ammunition along with this case being brought against him, his authority to possess firearms and shotguns was also withdrawn. In other words, Lincolnshire Police revoked those certificates so he could no longer possess licensable guns.
“This was contested at Lincoln Crown Court whereby his legal team failed to argue the case and judgement was held in support of the Police decision to revoke them.
“This should also stand as a warning to all certificate holders. One criminal act can easily lose you your right to possess firearms, but also the way you store/secure/keep those firearms can also have a huge detrimental impact on those certificates“.
It sounds then, that in addition to the charges against Bryant for the poison and trap offences, there was also an issue about the storage and security of his firearms and ammunition, although I haven’t seen any report of charges being brought against him for those alleged offences, just a revocation of his licences.
Given that the appeal hearing against his firearms and shotgun licence revocations was held at Lincoln Crown Court (date unknown), this probably accounts for at least some of the reported £100,000 costs incurred by Bryant for his defence, as mentioned in court during his sentencing hearing yesterday.
Looking at the account’s for Grange Farms (West Ashby) Ltd, held on Companies House website, which lists Bryant as one of several Directors (here), the family’s company can easily afford to cover Bryant’s own legal costs in addition to the fine and costs he received from the court (£7,449) from the company’s £1 million+ capital and reserves.
I do wonder about the firearms and shotgun revocations though. Can other family members, residing and/or working at the same property, hold their own certificates and thus legitimately keep firearms and shotguns on the premises? And if so, what measures are taken to ensure John Bryant doesn’t have access to them?
These are genuine questions. I’d welcome the opinion of any firearms experts who might be reading this.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Well done Lincolnshire Police and RSPB Investigations. This result is a timely warning to all gamekeepers with licensed firearms.John TurnerShropshire Peregrine Group
I’m not a firearms expert but I have fair experience & knowledge of the shotgun & firearms licensing system. I think – yes, other residents in the house can still hold Certs and keep their guns in the same house if they all live together. If they previously had a shared cabinet that will now have to be changed so that he has no keys to their cabinet (or cabinets) going forward. He will likely be allowed to transfer his guns to another Cert holder, yes – perhaps to someone in the same house.
Its all down to the wording on applications and renewals – centering around the Chief of Police of whichever force it is needing to be “satisfied” as to there being no danger to the public. This is a ridiculous grey area, an arena in which the force’s licensing officers, lawyers and/or BASC may fight about it. It sees different interpretations and inconsistencies across the UK from county force to county force.
I daresay he will be allowed to use shotguns & firearms “under the supervision” of another Cert holder on their land or other land that they have rights to shoot over.
Supervision being a very elastic term! I knew of a keeper who had his licences temporarily revoked after a wildlife crime conviction and a diagnosis of depression. He went around his job as usual, but he used guns belonging to the other Cert holders on the estate (underkeepers & trainees) and made sure he was never too far away from them so as to have a good excuse if challenged, which of course he never was. He got his Certs back after a couple of months anyway – which I suspect might well happen here.
This is why we need a complete overhaul of the firearms/shotgun certification system. The weapons (that’s what they are) should be confiscated and notice served that the individual concerned may not use any firearm/shotgun during the time of the ban. It should be their responsibility to inform other certificate holders of this and any breach should incur both a fine for the person lending their weapon and that weapon being confiscated, and a ban imposed on that individual (or any further individuals) in breach of the ban.
With regards to what spaghnum morose says about non licence holders being allowed to shoot shotguns / firearms under ‘supervision’ of the certificate / licence holder with the licence holders gun, I’ve also read somewhere (possibly on this site) that someone without a licence is permitted to do so as long as the licence holder is present. Whether in these circumstances a non licence holder is considered the same as someone who has had a licence revoked I don’t know so not much help sorry (I don’t think having previous convictions comes into it)
Keith Dancey will be a lot more informative than me and also states the question:
(*) Are non-licence holders the same as banned licence holders in law?
“Can other family members, residing and/or working at the same property, hold their own certificates and thus legitimately keep firearms and shotguns on the premises?
There is this from Unlock about applying for a licence (but does it apply for renewals?):
“The police will also ask for details of cautions/convictions of any person over the age of 18 who will be resident in the property where the firearms are going to be kept.”
See for context:
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/firearms-licence-holder/
“And if so, what measures are taken to ensure John Bryant doesn’t have access to them?”
Probably entirely a Police prerogative?
Aside: Non-licence holders(*) can still shoot, under certain conditions:
https://basc.org.uk/firearms/firearms-use/borrowing-shotguns/#:~:text=Sections%2011A%20and%2011(6,%E2%80%93%20(Section%2011(6))
(*) Are non-licence holders the same as banned licence holders in law?
Note: the charges all appear to have been brought against the individual, and not the Company.
Why isn’t this grotesque individual behind bars locked up yes well done to Lincolnshire police RSPB everyone involved and your interesting knowledge of firearms sphagnum and Keith .
You mention that, “the family’s company can easily afford to pay Bryant’s own legal costs in addition to the fine and costs he received from the court”. In the event the company paid these for him then it would be a Benefit in Kind for tax purposes. He would be assessed on those along with his income. This would still cost him albeit not as much as if he paid them himself. It is also possible HMRC could challenge these as being inadmissible expenses of the company.