By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Talking of "double quick time", the case against Daniel Thomas (AKA Tommo) seems to be proceeding with unusual speed. Today at the hearing in Basingstoke, he was charged with criminal damage under s1 of the 1971 Act, and failure to comply with a notice under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, contrary to section 53 of that Act. Thomas was remanded in custody until Sept 29th when he will appear at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Crown Court.
The prosecution asked the magistrate to deny bail because Thomas posed a danger to the public, and suggested that a two year sentence might be sought. As far as I can see, being held on remand is highly unusual in a criminal damage case of this type, as the sentencing guidelines for damage up to a value of £5000 specify a maximum prison term of 3 months, and where damage was under the £5K threshold most offenders would get a non-custodial sentence. The s54 prosecution for failure to disclose a mobile 'phone PIN could attract a standard 2 year sentence or up to 5 years in a serious case. However, the unusual feature here is proceeding to a prosecution so soon after the RIPA s49 notice was served. The police must seek judicial approval for a s49 notice and a suspect is typically given a period of time to comply that is "reasonable in all the circumstances.” The period allowed will be specified in the s49 notice, but in many cases is 7 days or 14 days. Here we seem to be witnessing extreme speed, given that the the interval was around a day. Thomas's supporters are already talking of two-tier justice,
[Post edited 25 Sep 13:46]
2
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 13:54 - Sep 25 with 3837 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 13:39 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Talking of "double quick time", the case against Daniel Thomas (AKA Tommo) seems to be proceeding with unusual speed. Today at the hearing in Basingstoke, he was charged with criminal damage under s1 of the 1971 Act, and failure to comply with a notice under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, contrary to section 53 of that Act. Thomas was remanded in custody until Sept 29th when he will appear at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Crown Court.
The prosecution asked the magistrate to deny bail because Thomas posed a danger to the public, and suggested that a two year sentence might be sought. As far as I can see, being held on remand is highly unusual in a criminal damage case of this type, as the sentencing guidelines for damage up to a value of £5000 specify a maximum prison term of 3 months, and where damage was under the £5K threshold most offenders would get a non-custodial sentence. The s54 prosecution for failure to disclose a mobile 'phone PIN could attract a standard 2 year sentence or up to 5 years in a serious case. However, the unusual feature here is proceeding to a prosecution so soon after the RIPA s49 notice was served. The police must seek judicial approval for a s49 notice and a suspect is typically given a period of time to comply that is "reasonable in all the circumstances.” The period allowed will be specified in the s49 notice, but in many cases is 7 days or 14 days. Here we seem to be witnessing extreme speed, given that the the interval was around a day. Thomas's supporters are already talking of two-tier justice,
[Post edited 25 Sep 13:46]
Would his previous be taken into account?
Not my area of expertise.
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 14:01 - Sep 25 with 3844 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 13:39 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Talking of "double quick time", the case against Daniel Thomas (AKA Tommo) seems to be proceeding with unusual speed. Today at the hearing in Basingstoke, he was charged with criminal damage under s1 of the 1971 Act, and failure to comply with a notice under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, contrary to section 53 of that Act. Thomas was remanded in custody until Sept 29th when he will appear at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Crown Court.
The prosecution asked the magistrate to deny bail because Thomas posed a danger to the public, and suggested that a two year sentence might be sought. As far as I can see, being held on remand is highly unusual in a criminal damage case of this type, as the sentencing guidelines for damage up to a value of £5000 specify a maximum prison term of 3 months, and where damage was under the £5K threshold most offenders would get a non-custodial sentence. The s54 prosecution for failure to disclose a mobile 'phone PIN could attract a standard 2 year sentence or up to 5 years in a serious case. However, the unusual feature here is proceeding to a prosecution so soon after the RIPA s49 notice was served. The police must seek judicial approval for a s49 notice and a suspect is typically given a period of time to comply that is "reasonable in all the circumstances.” The period allowed will be specified in the s49 notice, but in many cases is 7 days or 14 days. Here we seem to be witnessing extreme speed, given that the the interval was around a day. Thomas's supporters are already talking of two-tier justice,
[Post edited 25 Sep 13:46]
There’s certainly a pattern forming here which even the blind can see. Another worry is the case of the OAP who inadvertently drove towards a group of coppers stopped his car but then one of them for reasons as yet unknown threw himself on the bonnet feigning a collision. They then proceeded to drag him out of his car pinning him to the floor and arrested him .the police weren’t aware they were being filmed ,worrying times .
"In a free society, the State is the servant of the people—not the master."
3
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 15:42 - Sep 25 with 3776 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 13:39 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Talking of "double quick time", the case against Daniel Thomas (AKA Tommo) seems to be proceeding with unusual speed. Today at the hearing in Basingstoke, he was charged with criminal damage under s1 of the 1971 Act, and failure to comply with a notice under section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, contrary to section 53 of that Act. Thomas was remanded in custody until Sept 29th when he will appear at a Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing in the Crown Court.
The prosecution asked the magistrate to deny bail because Thomas posed a danger to the public, and suggested that a two year sentence might be sought. As far as I can see, being held on remand is highly unusual in a criminal damage case of this type, as the sentencing guidelines for damage up to a value of £5000 specify a maximum prison term of 3 months, and where damage was under the £5K threshold most offenders would get a non-custodial sentence. The s54 prosecution for failure to disclose a mobile 'phone PIN could attract a standard 2 year sentence or up to 5 years in a serious case. However, the unusual feature here is proceeding to a prosecution so soon after the RIPA s49 notice was served. The police must seek judicial approval for a s49 notice and a suspect is typically given a period of time to comply that is "reasonable in all the circumstances.” The period allowed will be specified in the s49 notice, but in many cases is 7 days or 14 days. Here we seem to be witnessing extreme speed, given that the the interval was around a day. Thomas's supporters are already talking of two-tier justice,
(No subject) (n/t) on 15:48 - Sep 25 by JACKMANANDBOY
[Post edited 25 Sep 21:12]
On a farcical/surreal/afront to justice and policing scale we are now seeing stuff that absolutely beggars belief! A+ stuff!
And just remember folks that if you decide to damage an illegal boat being used for criminal purposes by criminal gangs that did not get smashed despite a Labour governments promise to do so?
You will get a jail sentence when that boat should have been punctured to prevent it from being seaworthy in the first place, because the guy was only copying what French police were doing when on the rare occasions they could be bothered to do so in the first place!!!!!
In one sense it is refreshing to see harsh sentences for those stupid enough to assault members of the emergency services but it also stinks that it is not applied across the board. When you recall only a short time ago a Palestine action terrorist walked away Scot free and treated like a hero by many for striking a female police officer across the back with a sledgehammer after ram raiding a factory with a lorry in a pre meditated attack it is natural to wonder what the feck is going on?
(No subject) (n/t) on 16:12 - Sep 25 by Wingstandwood
On a farcical/surreal/afront to justice and policing scale we are now seeing stuff that absolutely beggars belief! A+ stuff!
And just remember folks that if you decide to damage an illegal boat being used for criminal purposes by criminal gangs that did not get smashed despite a Labour governments promise to do so?
You will get a jail sentence when that boat should have been punctured to prevent it from being seaworthy in the first place, because the guy was only copying what French police were doing when on the rare occasions they could be bothered to do so in the first place!!!!!
But why do we as a country allow it Wingy Why are thousands pleading and bleeding for the scum of the earth from third world shiholrs with no human rights especially for women Why is abuse of women tolerated
Lots of people are making similar comparisons on social media.
There isn't much media reportage of this "People Against Genocide" (PAG) case. The two women were arrested at the Martin-Baker factory in Denham near Uxbridge on August 24th and up until now don't seem to have been charged, They were released on police bail pending further investigation. As so many have said, the logic of what happens in these different cases defies easy explanation - apart from a malign explanation.
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 18:31 - Sep 25 with 3620 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 17:38 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Lots of people are making similar comparisons on social media.
There isn't much media reportage of this "People Against Genocide" (PAG) case. The two women were arrested at the Martin-Baker factory in Denham near Uxbridge on August 24th and up until now don't seem to have been charged, They were released on police bail pending further investigation. As so many have said, the logic of what happens in these different cases defies easy explanation - apart from a malign explanation.
From AI:
The differences in how the courts handled Daniel Thomas ("Danny Tommo") compared to the Palestine Action protesters come down to specific legal criteria used for bail decisions, rather than the political nature of the causes.While the comparison on social media points out that both involved allegations of criminal damage, English courts evaluate bail by assessing the individual risks posed by the defendant before their trial.The three primary reasons the legal outcomes differed include:1. Risk of Reoffending and Past RecordUnder the Bail Act 1976, a court is far more likely to remand a defendant in custody if there is a substantial risk they will commit further offences while on bail.Daniel Thomas: Thomas has a history of active involvement and organization in volatile public protests. The prosecution argued that his recent actions—allegedly traveling out into the English Channel to intercept and damage a boat—demonstrated a high risk of continued, escalating disruption if he were released.Palestine Action Protesters: While their actions involved direct action and criminal damage against corporate property, individuals without extensive or recent records of failing to comply with court orders are routinely granted bail, often with strict conditions (such as exclusion zones or curfews) to mitigate the risk of them returning to the site.2. Nature of the Alleged Offence and Public SafetyCourts view criminal damage differently based on where it occurs and what else is involved.The Channel Incident: The allegation against Thomas involves boarding a vessel in the English Channel while an emergency responder was present. Actions taken at sea introduce significant safety risks to life, which elevates the perceived severity and public safety risk of the offence in the eyes of the magistrate.The Roof Protest: Climbing onto a factory roof to cause property damage, while illegal and dangerous, is treated by the courts as a localized protest against a commercial entity rather than an act that immediately threatens life or emergency operations at sea.3. Compliance with Police (The PIN Charge)Cooperation with basic legal procedures heavily influences a judge's assessment of whether a defendant will respect court orders.Thomas faces an additional charge of failing to disclose his mobile phone PIN to the police. Refusing to comply with lawful data access requirements signals to a court that a defendant may not comply with bail conditions or the judicial process, making a remand in custody much more likely.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 18:53 - Sep 25 with 3600 views
(No subject) (n/t) on 17:34 - Sep 25 by onehunglow
But why do we as a country allow it Wingy Why are thousands pleading and bleeding for the scum of the earth from third world shiholrs with no human rights especially for women Why is abuse of women tolerated
Just look at the state of the judiciary and lawmaking, that plays its part!
Argus!
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 19:17 - Sep 25 with 3584 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 17:32 - Sep 25 by Joesus_Of_Narbereth
In one sense it is refreshing to see harsh sentences for those stupid enough to assault members of the emergency services but it also stinks that it is not applied across the board. When you recall only a short time ago a Palestine action terrorist walked away Scot free and treated like a hero by many for striking a female police officer across the back with a sledgehammer after ram raiding a factory with a lorry in a pre meditated attack it is natural to wonder what the feck is going on?
Didn’t they get 7 years for that?
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 19:50 - Sep 25 with 3549 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 17:38 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Lots of people are making similar comparisons on social media.
There isn't much media reportage of this "People Against Genocide" (PAG) case. The two women were arrested at the Martin-Baker factory in Denham near Uxbridge on August 24th and up until now don't seem to have been charged, They were released on police bail pending further investigation. As so many have said, the logic of what happens in these different cases defies easy explanation - apart from a malign explanation.
I suppose for a real two tier comparison we need to if those idiots from Palestine Action have pervious convictions for house breaking and kidnapping at knife point.
This is in no way a comment on the Thomas sentencing which needs looking at imo. More that if we’re going to effectively call out two tier justice then crimes an perpetrators need to be comparable.
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 19:50 - Sep 25 with 3547 views
In the same (mindset) state as that of Labour Party, establishment and others showing the obvious intent to crush civil disobedience and protest by all means possible.... And by the handing out of prison sentence's, that bizarrely coincides at the exact time period when the prisons are meant to be full and when vastly more serious offenders are being released early because of.
[Post edited 25 Sep 20:29]
Argus!
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:43 - Sep 25 with 3515 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 18:31 - Sep 25 by Gwyn737
From AI:
The differences in how the courts handled Daniel Thomas ("Danny Tommo") compared to the Palestine Action protesters come down to specific legal criteria used for bail decisions, rather than the political nature of the causes.While the comparison on social media points out that both involved allegations of criminal damage, English courts evaluate bail by assessing the individual risks posed by the defendant before their trial.The three primary reasons the legal outcomes differed include:1. Risk of Reoffending and Past RecordUnder the Bail Act 1976, a court is far more likely to remand a defendant in custody if there is a substantial risk they will commit further offences while on bail.Daniel Thomas: Thomas has a history of active involvement and organization in volatile public protests. The prosecution argued that his recent actions—allegedly traveling out into the English Channel to intercept and damage a boat—demonstrated a high risk of continued, escalating disruption if he were released.Palestine Action Protesters: While their actions involved direct action and criminal damage against corporate property, individuals without extensive or recent records of failing to comply with court orders are routinely granted bail, often with strict conditions (such as exclusion zones or curfews) to mitigate the risk of them returning to the site.2. Nature of the Alleged Offence and Public SafetyCourts view criminal damage differently based on where it occurs and what else is involved.The Channel Incident: The allegation against Thomas involves boarding a vessel in the English Channel while an emergency responder was present. Actions taken at sea introduce significant safety risks to life, which elevates the perceived severity and public safety risk of the offence in the eyes of the magistrate.The Roof Protest: Climbing onto a factory roof to cause property damage, while illegal and dangerous, is treated by the courts as a localized protest against a commercial entity rather than an act that immediately threatens life or emergency operations at sea.3. Compliance with Police (The PIN Charge)Cooperation with basic legal procedures heavily influences a judge's assessment of whether a defendant will respect court orders.Thomas faces an additional charge of failing to disclose his mobile phone PIN to the police. Refusing to comply with lawful data access requirements signals to a court that a defendant may not comply with bail conditions or the judicial process, making a remand in custody much more likely.
Interesting, but I think much of this is wide of the mark. The main problem is that this is a general answer, not well tailored to the specifics of the case.
The first point to consider is what was given as the reason for refusing bail in the court proceedings. This was that Thomas posed a risk to the public because of his past record of involvement in disorderly protests, and the magistrate specifically said that he agreed that that was an important factor when he gave his reasons for the decision. The other considerations mentioned in the AI blurb are theoretical ones that did not feature in these particular court deliberations.
One might ask: what kind of risk to the public did the disorderly protests pose? An early police statement had said that Thomas might be charged with a third offence of criminal damage with intent to endanger life, but the CPS presumably concluded that the evidence wasn't strong enough for that to go ahead.
The only recent charges against Thomas all relate to Dover this year. He pleaded guilty to entering a restricted area at Dover Port and that is on his criminal record. Five other charges to which Thomas has pleaded not guilty are pending and he cannot be assumed to be guilty without due process. His other criminal conviction dates back to 2016 and concerns an attack and forcible holding of a man suspected of being involved in drug dealing by Thomas and others. No doubt this was an unsavory episode, but it did not pose a general risk to the public.
Had the two women in the August case been members of Palestine Action they would have faced a potential terrorism charge, but in fact they were members of People Against Genocide (PAG), an organisation with similar aims that is not currently proscribed. PA and PAG have committed a string of recent attacks on companies said to supply military materials to Israel, in many cases involving repeat offending by the same persons. To put it mildly both have a "history of active involvement and organization in volatile public protests". Some of these attacks have resulted in serious injury to employees and a police officer - amounting to what many would see as a threat to members of the public. None of the charges pending against Thomas involve that degree of physical violence.
Regarding wider context and magnitude of disruption, the actions of PAG had the effect of damaging UK defence assets at a time of high international tension. Thomas's action in the case under consideration were merely aimed at preventing the return to France of a dinghy and life jackets owned by smugglers, where Thomas believed they might be used to facilitate future illegal crossings. To me, the first is clearly a bigger threat to the public interest than the second.
The third consideration mentioned about the s54 charge and inferences that might be drawn about likely non-compliance with bail conditions may have some merit, but again one needs to consider what happens in similar cases. PA and PAG have an awful record of non-compliance with official rulings such as the designation of PA as a proscribed organisation, but members facing charges still get bail. The unusually short time period given to Thomas to comply with the s49 notice also sets his case apart.
A consideration not mentioned by AI that also affects the grant of bail in many cases is the personal, and especially the family situation of the defendant. Thomas's barrister put forward substantial personal circumstances in support of bail: he has a long-standing partner and four children, his partner is pregnant, and he is the family's main breadwinner. Neither of the two young women granted bail in the Martin-Baker case have significant family responsibilities.
[Post edited 25 Sep 20:56]
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:48 - Sep 25 with 3489 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:43 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
Interesting, but I think much of this is wide of the mark. The main problem is that this is a general answer, not well tailored to the specifics of the case.
The first point to consider is what was given as the reason for refusing bail in the court proceedings. This was that Thomas posed a risk to the public because of his past record of involvement in disorderly protests, and the magistrate specifically said that he agreed that that was an important factor when he gave his reasons for the decision. The other considerations mentioned in the AI blurb are theoretical ones that did not feature in these particular court deliberations.
One might ask: what kind of risk to the public did the disorderly protests pose? An early police statement had said that Thomas might be charged with a third offence of criminal damage with intent to endanger life, but the CPS presumably concluded that the evidence wasn't strong enough for that to go ahead.
The only recent charges against Thomas all relate to Dover this year. He pleaded guilty to entering a restricted area at Dover Port and that is on his criminal record. Five other charges to which Thomas has pleaded not guilty are pending and he cannot be assumed to be guilty without due process. His other criminal conviction dates back to 2016 and concerns an attack and forcible holding of a man suspected of being involved in drug dealing by Thomas and others. No doubt this was an unsavory episode, but it did not pose a general risk to the public.
Had the two women in the August case been members of Palestine Action they would have faced a potential terrorism charge, but in fact they were members of People Against Genocide (PAG), an organisation with similar aims that is not currently proscribed. PA and PAG have committed a string of recent attacks on companies said to supply military materials to Israel, in many cases involving repeat offending by the same persons. To put it mildly both have a "history of active involvement and organization in volatile public protests". Some of these attacks have resulted in serious injury to employees and a police officer - amounting to what many would see as a threat to members of the public. None of the charges pending against Thomas involve that degree of physical violence.
Regarding wider context and magnitude of disruption, the actions of PAG had the effect of damaging UK defence assets at a time of high international tension. Thomas's action in the case under consideration were merely aimed at preventing the return to France of a dinghy and life jackets owned by smugglers, where Thomas believed they might be used to facilitate future illegal crossings. To me, the first is clearly a bigger threat to the public interest than the second.
The third consideration mentioned about the s54 charge and inferences that might be drawn about likely non-compliance with bail conditions may have some merit, but again one needs to consider what happens in similar cases. PA and PAG have an awful record of non-compliance with official rulings such as the designation of PA as a proscribed organisation, but members facing charges still get bail. The unusually short time period given to Thomas to comply with the s49 notice also sets his case apart.
A consideration not mentioned by AI that also affects the grant of bail in many cases is the personal, and especially the family situation of the defendant. Thomas's barrister put forward substantial personal circumstances in support of bail: he has a long-standing partner and four children, his partner is pregnant, and he is the family's main breadwinner. Neither of the two young women granted bail in the Martin-Baker case have significant family responsibilities.
[Post edited 25 Sep 20:56]
Do you not think his previous action would have been taken into consideration at all?
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:53 - Sep 25 with 3501 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:48 - Sep 25 by Gwyn737
Do you not think his previous action would have been taken into consideration at all?
To the extent that the magistrate said he considered involvement in disorderly protests, yes. But you do not deal with the specific arguments I put forward. which I think have a lot of force.
[Post edited 25 Sep 20:57]
0
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 21:20 - Sep 25 with 3453 views
Jailed for throwing a plastic bottle and swearing on 20:53 - Sep 25 by AnotherJohn
To the extent that the magistrate said he considered involvement in disorderly protests, yes. But you do not deal with the specific arguments I put forward. which I think have a lot of force.
[Post edited 25 Sep 20:57]
I’m not trying to defend the actions towards Thomas. Just pointing out that it’s not really a direct comparison.
I suppose whether he presents a risk in further protests or actions is subjective. I assume his social media presence and the rhetoric he used counts against him. Certainly it’s more public and high profile than the Bristol idiots. They didn’t have a load of men in balaclavas marching on their police station either.
As for a wider context, I do find it surprising that the person refused bail will end up with a far shorter sentence than the PA three. It can only assume this is down to the risk posed on release as alluded to above.
As for non compliance with bail conditions, that’s subjective too. The PA 3 as far as I’m aware did not breach the bail conditions so with hindsight could be deemed the correct call. We’ll never know with Thomas which I can see can be viewed as problematic.
In regard to personal circumstances dictating bail, it’s something I don’t know about. I assume it’s lumped in with the balance of risk but happy to be corrected.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.