Daniel “Tommo” Thomas charged, no bail.

I frequently struggle with decisions made by courts.
Daniel Thorpe has been refused bail while in London, a paedophile who lived in a flat overlooking a school playground and took thousands of photos of young women and girls to 'nudify' them on his phone was allowed bail and returned to the same flat and area where he committed his crimes. One affected family moved so their daughter would not bump into him.
If I had a choice I would far rather have Tommo walking my streets than a paedophile.

Criminal damage to a dinghy wow who's pressing charges the smuggling gang boss worried about his business. Is Starmer back? talk about two tier justice.

oops knew what the repercussions would be but I don't expect in his wildest dreams he thought he'd be bailed for 2 years.

Presumably the man charged with the rape of a 15 year old and other sexual offences knew

Fallingstar

JenniRen

He was arrested on suspicion of four separate things relating to to the incident at sea: destroying ships or endangering their safety under Section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, plain criminal damage, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, and conduct endangering ships or individuals under Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

It was a small rubber dinghy, not HMS Queen Elizabeth!

There was a rescue worker on board the dinghy at the time whose life was put at risk by this man’s actions.
Tbh I imagine Daniel Thomas knew exactly what the repercussions for what he was doing would be and will wear any custodial sentence he receives like a badge of honour.

According to a report, he gave him the opportunity to get off.

Not that I would defend this obnoxious man, but it is the discrepancy in bail conditions which is concerning.

It was a small rubber dinghy, not HMS Queen Elizabeth!

The legal definition of a ship “includes every description of vessel used in navigation”. The craft must be actively used, or capable of being used, for moving safely from one place to another on water.

JenniRen

^He was arrested on suspicion of four separate things relating to to the incident at sea: destroying ships or endangering their safety under Section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, plain criminal damage, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, and conduct endangering ships or individuals under Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.^

It was a small rubber dinghy, not HMS Queen Elizabeth!

There was a rescue worker on board the dinghy at the time whose life was put at risk by this man’s actions.
Tbh I imagine Daniel Thomas knew exactly what the repercussions for what he was doing would be and will wear any custodial sentence he receives like a badge of honour.

He was arrested on suspicion of four separate things relating to to the incident at sea: destroying ships or endangering their safety under Section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, plain criminal damage, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, and conduct endangering ships or individuals under Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

It was a small rubber dinghy, not HMS Queen Elizabeth!

GrannyGravy13

Both broke the law.

I cannot understand the mindset of the judge who let the man charged with rape of a child and sexual assault out on bail for the next two years.

Daniel Thomson knew what he was doing, I imagine he also knew that he would be refused bail and incur a custodial sentence.

Me neither.

One man is remanded in custody having been charged on one count of criminal damage and failing to provide a pin number to police?

Another man has had his bail extended to almost two years after allegedly raping a child and committing six sexual assaults?

Disregarding who these two alleged perpetrators are, there seems to be an anomaly here.

Perhaps the thinking is that Thomas could commit further offences so should not be allowed bail.

However, someone alleged to have raped a child and committed sexual assault should most definitely not be given 22 months bail.

The victims of the alleged rapist must be terrified.

Lucy Connolly?
I see what you are saying Graphite.
What the heck will happen now with his followers? All hell will break loose...which of course is a separate issue.

The problem is a lot of people don't want to acknowledge the large decrease in AS over the last 2 years.
The power of imagery, seeing the boats arrive, surpasses the reality.

Thanks for the info Graphite.
So am imagining the pedophile I mentioned in my post had no priors, but this doesn’t take away from the very real risk to children upon his release. I just think that sex offences are often a compulsion which the offender cannot control so rules around releasing them because there are no priors should be reviewed.

Cossy

I neither understand nor condone either of these men.

Both have broken the law.

I don’t think the rapist should have bail.

My sentiments exactly.
The law is often an ass. Was a case on the news this lunchtime of a pedophile being released on bail and allowed to return to his flat with a window overlooking an area where children played and where he had taken photos of them, later to photoshop them so that the children appeared naked. The family of one of his victims has had to relocate.
Sex offenders should not get bail. Let’s think of the victims. And btw it isn’t only immigrant sex offenders given the swerve by the law so that they can offend again. It is our judicial system that is at fault here.

This is not the same as the Lucy Connolly case at all. She pleaded guilty to a serious offence and was jailed.

There are rules about bail. It’s all explained here:

www.cps.gov.uk/prosecution-guidance/bail#c8

Where a person is charged with an offence of manslaughter, rape or a serious sexual offence, and has previously been convicted in the UK or court of an EU Member State of an offence of murder, attempted murder, rape or a serious sexual offence he shall only be granted bail where there are exceptional reasons, which justify it.

If a defendant has no previous conviction he can be granted bail.

As for Thomas, in considering whether to give bail there is the "no real prospect" test. A remand into custody should not be sought for an unconvicted defendant who has no real prospect of an immediate custodial sentence.

Thomas has a conviction. In 2016 he was jailed for two years after pleading guilty to attempting to kidnapping a man at knifepoint.

He has now pleased not guilty to an offence which he recorded himself committing.

He was arrested on suspicion of four separate things relating to to the incident at sea: destroying ships or endangering their safety under Section 11 of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, plain criminal damage, criminal damage with intent to endanger life, and conduct endangering ships or individuals under Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

Two of those four carry the maximum sentence available under English law.

So far he has been charged with one count of criminal damage along with an offence under section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa), for allegedly failing to comply with a notice to disclose a phone pin to police.

The latter can result in a two year custodial sentence or five years if the case involves national security - which, in view of what he has been organising lately - may apply.

I am sure you are aware that PACE requires the police to charge someone within a set time or release them. Further charges can be added as investigations continue.

I suspect there is a very real prospect that Thomas will be sent to jail again and that’s why he has been refused bail.

Cossy

I neither understand nor condone either of these men.

Both have broken the law.

I don’t think the rapist should have bail.

Completely agree

Apologies my autocorrect thinks it knows best - Daniel Thomas not Thomson

Both broke the law.

I cannot understand the mindset of the judge who let the man charged with rape of a child and sexual assault out on bail for the next two years.

Daniel Thomson knew what he was doing, I imagine he also knew that he would be refused bail and incur a custodial sentence.

I neither understand nor condone either of these men.

Both have broken the law.

I don’t think the rapist should have bail.

You may not condone his behaviour but you can understand it.
Many people are angry at the level of illegal immigration the UK is experiencing and want to do something actively against it.