Daniel Thomas Denied Bail in English Channel Dinghy Slashing Case as Trial Date Set

A prominent anti-migrant activist has been denied bail following a crown court hearing connected to the alleged slashing of a small boat in the English Channel. Daniel Thomas, who is widely known among his followers as Danny Tommo, appeared before Portsmouth Crown Court via videolink on Tuesday to face charges of criminal damage and failing to disclose the PIN to his mobile phone.

The 37-year-old is accused of using a knife to slash at a dinghy that had reportedly been used by migrants and was adrift at sea. According to prosecutors, the alleged incident was broadcast live on social media to a substantial audience. The court heard that Thomas livestreamed from the English Channel at approximately 16:30 BST on 22 September.

During the hearing, the defendant wore a grey t-shirt and held a copy of the Bible as he watched proceedings remotely. He did not enter a plea on Tuesday, but he had previously pleaded not guilty to both charges during an earlier appearance at Basingstoke Magistrates' Court on Friday.

The judge presiding over the case, James Newton-Price KC, refused the application for bail. In delivering his decision, the judge made clear that he was setting aside any political considerations. "I am not concerned with the political issues or motivations in this matter and I put them aside in deciding this matter," he stated. Thomas has been remanded in custody, with a provisional trial date scheduled for 1 March.

The prosecution alleges that Thomas used his social media platform to broadcast the incident from the Channel, reaching a large viewership. He is accused of slashing a boat that had been used by migrants while it was adrift in the sea. At the time of the alleged incident, a rescue crew member was reportedly on board the vessel.

The court also heard allegations that Thomas made statements during the livestream, including "this is what needs to happen" and "this is England, this isn't France any more." These remarks are expected to form part of the prosecution's case as proceedings move toward trial.

Simon Pentol KC, representing Thomas, had argued for his release. The defence proposed what was described as a "package of bail conditions" as an alternative to keeping him in custody. Pentol characterised the allegation against his client as "politically charged and fundamentally flawed," suggesting the defence intends to challenge the substance and motivation behind the charge.

Despite the defence's arguments, the judge declined to grant bail, meaning Thomas will remain in detention until at least his next court appearance. The decision reflects the serious nature of the allegations and the court's assessment of the risks associated with releasing him.

The case has drawn attention due to Thomas's public profile as a leader within the anti-migrant movement. He is known to supporters by the nickname Danny Tommo and has used social media to build a following around his activism. The alleged livestream from the English Channel underscores the intersection of social media, direct action, and the highly charged political debate surrounding migration across the Channel.

The charge of failing to disclose the PIN to his phone adds a secondary legal dimension to the case. Under UK law, authorities can require individuals to provide access to electronic devices under certain circumstances, and refusal can constitute a separate criminal offence. This charge suggests investigators are seeking to examine data from Thomas's phone as part of their inquiry into the boat incident.

The alleged incident occurred in a context of ongoing tensions over small boat crossings in the English Channel. Migrant dinghies are frequently intercepted by authorities, and rescue crews often operate in dangerous conditions to assist those on board. The presence of a rescue crew member on the boat at the time of the alleged slashing raises additional concerns about safety and interference with maritime operations.

The court's decision to remand Thomas in custody indicates the judge found the prosecution's concerns sufficient to justify detention. Bail decisions in crown court typically weigh factors such as the seriousness of the offence, the risk of further offences, the risk of absconding, and the potential impact on witnesses. In this instance, the judge determined that custody was the appropriate course.

A small number of supporters gathered outside the court to await the outcome of the hearing. Their presence reflects the public interest the case has generated, particularly among those who follow Thomas's activities online. However, the judge's remarks made clear that the legal proceedings would not be swayed by political sentiment on either side.

The trial is provisionally set for 1 March, at which point the case will proceed further. Thomas has already indicated he denies both charges, setting the stage for a contested trial. The coming months will likely involve further case management hearings and the preparation of evidence, including the analysis of the livestream footage that police have been examining.

The case also highlights broader questions about the role of social media in activism and the boundaries between protest, direct action, and criminal conduct. The alleged livestreaming of the incident means that much of the evidence may be drawn from the broadcast itself, which was reportedly viewed by a large audience in real time.

As the legal process continues, Thomas remains in custody. The refusal of bail means he will await trial from detention, a significant development in a case that has attracted attention from both supporters and critics of his activism. The court's emphasis on setting aside political motivations signals that the case will be decided on its legal merits, with the trial expected to examine the precise circumstances of the alleged boat slashing and the defendant's actions on that day in September.