He was accused of murder. Ultimately, he was found guilty and sentenced to 33 years: https://www.hampshire.police.uk/news/hampshire/news/news/201...
And then there's the other direction, which I must confess I thought would have involved the RIP Act but ultimately didn't, instead it used anti-terrorism legislation.
A French employee of radical French publishing house that the French government is very cross with, arrived in Britain for a book fair. He was arrested and held for 24 hours using anti-terror legislation. The cops also confiscated his phone and laptop, and held onto them for more than 10 weeks, and they threatened him "with never being able to travel overseas if he failed to hand over a password to his confiscated iPhone and MacBook": https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/21/police-watch...
The general concern is that France is not allowed to do that, so asked Britain to do it for them, and Britain did it. There wasn't even a hint that he'd broken the law in Britain, and all that was wanted was for the French government to get ahold of the contents of his phone and laptop. Perhaps this is the only reason (that they had absolutely nothing on him) that they didn't twist the knife and use the RIP Act to imprison him simply for not unlocking his devices for them: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/19/french-publi...
A person received a 16 week prison sentence for not disclosing a password. In the context, it’s possible that had he disclosed the password, police would have discovered material that would have attracted a far more severe punishment.
So one might argue that the RIP was too weak, and failed to compel disclosure of the password (four months in jail is light in the circumstances).