A prominent anti-migrant activist has been charged with criminal damage after allegedly puncturing an inflatable boat carrying people across the English Channel, in an incident that also raises fresh questions about the limits of police digital search powers. Daniel Thomas, 37, who operates online under the name Danny Tommo, was arrested on Wednesday night and remains in custody ahead of a court appearance on Friday.
What the charges allege
Hampshire Police confirmed on Thursday evening that Thomas faces one count of criminal damage connected to an incident on Tuesday, 22 September, in which a small boat was allegedly damaged while an emergency responder was still aboard. Footage that circulated online in the aftermath appeared to show Thomas approaching an inflatable dinghy and causing damage to it. The location - open water in one of the busiest and most dangerous shipping channels in the world - adds a layer of gravity to the allegation, given the risks posed to anyone aboard a disabled vessel at sea.
Thomas, described in charging documents as of no fixed abode, is due before Basingstoke Magistrates’ Court. He has been remanded in custody in the meantime, a decision that typically reflects either the perceived seriousness of the alleged offence, concerns about flight risk, or both.
A second charge with wider implications
Alongside the criminal damage charge, Thomas has been charged under Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), relating to an allegation that he refused to provide police with the PIN to unlock a mobile phone when legally required to do so. This provision is less widely understood than most criminal offences, yet it sits at the centre of an increasingly common area of dispute between law enforcement and individuals under investigation.
Section 53 makes it an offence to withhold encryption keys or access codes - including phone PINs - when served with a proper notice under RIPA, provided investigators can show reasonable grounds for suspecting that disclosure is necessary, for example to prevent crime or in the interests of national security. The provision exists because modern encryption, by design, can make data on a locked device practically inaccessible without the correct credentials. Refusal to comply carries its own criminal liability, independent of whatever is eventually found, or not found, on the device itself.
Cases invoking Section 53 tend to attract attention well beyond their immediate facts because they touch on a long-running tension: the right to privacy and protection against self-incrimination, set against the state’s interest in accessing evidence that could be central to a prosecution. Courts in England and Wales have repeatedly upheld the compatibility of Section 53 with human rights protections, but the provision remains a point of friction in digital rights debates, precisely because strong encryption - the same technology that protects ordinary users’ banking details, messages and personal data - can equally shield material relevant to criminal investigations.
Context around the Channel crossings
Small boat crossings of the Channel have become one of the most contentious issues in British politics, prompting sustained activism on multiple sides of the debate. Incidents involving direct confrontation with vessels at sea are rare and carry serious safety risks, both for those on board the boats and for anyone intervening. Maritime and emergency services have repeatedly stressed that unauthorised interference with any vessel at sea, regardless of the circumstances or cargo, can endanger lives and complicate rescue operations already stretched by high crossing volumes.
The case will now proceed through the ordinary channels of the criminal justice system, with the magistrates’ court appearance expected to determine the next procedural steps, including whether the case is referred to a higher court given the nature of the charges.
