Anti-migrant activist Danny Tommo has claimed that a court intends to make his children’s address public following his latest appearance before magistrates. The actual court rules concern the address of the defendant – Daniel Thomas himself.
Daniel Thomas, better known online as Danny Tommo, appeared at Margate Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, 27 August, facing six charges connected with his activities at the Port of Dover earlier this year.
Thomas pleaded guilty to entering a restricted harbour area at Western Jet Foil, a short-term holding facility for people arriving by small boat, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse on 31 March.
He pleaded not guilty to the remaining five charges.
Those include allegations of using threatening or abusive words or behaviour to cause distress, trespassing at Dover Western Docks and Dunkirk Jetty to film and shout at arriving vessels and using racially abusive words or behaviour to cause harassment or distress.
Those allegations have not been proven and Thomas is entitled to the presumption of innocence. His next hearing is expected in October. The Independent reported on the hearing.
Thomas claims his children’s address will be published
Following the hearing, Thomas made a series of posts about the proceedings.
In one, he claimed:
“The court are now also saying they will publish my children’s address and make it public.”
He went on to say this could place his family at risk and invoked the assassination of American political activist Charlie Kirk, arguing that being described as a Nazi or racist could expose him and his family to violence.
But his description of what the court is doing leaves out some important context.
What the court rules actually say
There are longstanding rules allowing journalists access to information about defendants appearing before criminal courts in England and Wales.
HM Courts and Tribunals Service guidance says that, while a case is ongoing, authorised journalists can request information including the identity of the defendant, charges, pleas, court decisions and – importantly – the defendant’s address.
The latest HMCTS guidance specifically states that providing the identity of a defendant to authorised news organisations includes their address, along with their age and, where available, their date of birth.
That information is supplied to journalists as part of the open justice system.
The rules do not say that a defendant’s children’s addresses should be published.
Nor is a defendant’s home address automatically made available to everybody. HMCTS guidance distinguishes between information available more generally and the enhanced information available to authorised news organisations. Reporting restrictions can also be imposed where appropriate. The official HMCTS guidance is available on GOV.UK.
If Thomas’s children happen to live at the same address as him, it is understandable that he might have concerns about their privacy.
But that is materially different from suggesting that the court has decided to “publish my children’s address”.
The information concerned is his address as the defendant in criminal proceedings.
It is not something being done specifically to Danny Tommo
There is also nothing in the rules suggesting Thomas has been singled out because of his political activities.
Providing information about defendants to accredited court reporters is an established part of open justice and applies generally to criminal proceedings.
Courts can impose restrictions where the law allows and where particular circumstances justify them.
The principle itself, however, is routine.
Thomas has repeatedly portrayed the proceedings against him as politically motivated.
After Thursday’s hearing he posted that it was “crystal clear” that what he described as “the establishment” wanted him imprisoned.
The reality is less dramatic: he has admitted one criminal offence, denies five others and those remaining allegations will now be determined through the courts.
Thomas has previously published his own address by mistake
There is an additional irony surrounding Thomas’s concern about his address becoming known.
Searchlight reported in June that Thomas himself inadvertently revealed his address while producing a video about a boat he had purchased as part of his anti-migrant activities in the Channel.
According to the publication, Thomas displayed two unredacted invoices from Littlehampton Harbour to his audience.
The invoices contained his address.
Searchlight described the incident as Thomas having effectively “doxxed himself”.
The publication later reported that Thomas had given police his address as “NFA”, meaning no fixed abode, despite Searchlight claiming to possess more recent documentation linking him to a residential address.
At Thursday’s hearing, the court was told that Thomas is currently living in a caravan. Searchlight has previously reported on the dispute over his stated address.
Genuine safety concerns should be taken seriously
Nobody should have their family threatened because of their political opinions and genuine concerns about the safety of children deserve to be taken seriously.
But that does not mean normal court procedures should be presented as something they are not.
Nothing we have found indicates that Margate Magistrates’ Court has announced an intention specifically to publish the addresses of Danny Tommo’s children.
What the rules provide for is disclosure of the defendant’s address to authorised news organisations, subject to applicable restrictions.
In this case, the defendant is Daniel Thomas.
And that is considerably different from the claim now circulating among his followers.
