An activist known as Danny Tommo will remain behind bars after a judge at Portsmouth Crown Court refused his application for bail on Tuesday. Daniel Thomas, 37, faces one count of criminal damage and a separate charge under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 after allegedly refusing to hand over his phone PIN when legally required to do so. He denies both charges.
What happened in court
Thomas, who has no fixed address, appeared by video link from HMP Winchester. He was seen holding a Bible throughout the hearing and grew visibly emotional as the judge addressed his case, with family members watching from the public gallery. His legal team had proposed bail to an address described only as being in "central Hampshire," but the court rejected the application, meaning he stays in custody. He is next due before the court on 12 November, with a provisional trial date set for 1 March 2027 - a timeline that reflects the often lengthy wait defendants face for Crown Court trials in England and Wales, particularly where multiple charges and investigatory evidence are involved.
The underlying allegations
Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary say the charges stem from an incident in which a boat was allegedly damaged in the English Channel while an emergency responder was on board. Thomas was charged on 24 September and first appeared at Basingstoke Magistrates' Court the following day, where he pleaded not guilty and was remanded. The case is connected to wider unrest in Gosport on 22 September, when protests broke out following reports of a small boat crossing the Channel. Police said six people were arrested that evening amid efforts to facilitate peaceful protest while protecting the public and supporting agencies responding to a possible emergency at sea.
Why the PIN disclosure charge matters
The Section 53 charge is the more legally unusual element of this case. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, UK authorities can compel individuals to disclose encryption keys or device passcodes during an investigation; refusal to comply is itself a criminal offence, independent of whatever underlying inquiry prompted the request. This provision sits at the centre of a long-running tension between digital privacy and law enforcement powers. Civil liberties groups have repeatedly argued that compelled disclosure effectively overrides the right against self-incrimination and can expose vast amounts of personal data stored on modern smartphones - far more than a traditional search might uncover. Prosecutors, by contrast, see such powers as essential where encrypted devices might otherwise place evidence permanently out of reach. Cases invoking Section 53 are relatively rare and tend to draw scrutiny precisely because they test where that balance should sit.
What comes next
Thomas has not been convicted of any offence, and both the criminal damage allegation and the PIN disclosure charge remain to be tested in court. With a trial not expected until March 2027, the case is likely to remain a reference point in wider debates over protest policing, maritime safety responses, and the limits of state power to access personal devices.
