RELEASE DANNY TOMMO

This is not about whether you agree with Danny Tommo’s politics. It is about whether pre-trial detention is proportionate and whether the same principles of justice are being applied consistently.

Danny Tommo has not been convicted of anything. He has pleaded not guilty and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. His trial is provisionally not until 1 March 2027, meaning he could spend around six months in custody before he has even had his case heard.

At the same time, five men arrested near RAF Fairford on suspicion of explosives offences and preparing an act of terrorism were released on strict police bail while the investigation continues. They remain under investigation and no explosives were found in the vehicles, according to counter-terrorism police.

That does not mean those five men should have been kept in prison. It means we should be asking a very simple question:

If stringent bail conditions can be considered sufficient to manage the risk posed by people being investigated for suspected terrorism, why could similarly stringent conditions not be considered for Danny Tommo while he awaits trial?

If the concern is the possibility of further offending, interference with witnesses, or failure to attend court, those risks should be assessed individually and addressed through appropriate conditions where possible.

Justice should not be about who we like, who we dislike, or which political opinions we find acceptable.

Charge someone if there is evidence. Try them fairly. Convict them if guilt is proven. But imprisonment before trial should be necessary and proportionate, not a punishment imposed before guilt has been established.

If strict conditions can protect the public while an investigation into alleged terrorism continues, it is entirely legitimate to ask why strict conditions could not be considered for Danny Tommo pending his trial.

Equal justice means equal principles.