If the article (and other sources online) are to be believed, the law she is accused of breaking is failing to provide passwords to her devices following a raid on February 24th.

She was convicted, sentenced to pay a fine, and paid a fine for the vandalism of the plexiglass on February 10. So that matter was settled before any of this went down.

The question then is, what is the justification for this raid by ‘counter-terrorist’ police - and subsequent orders such as not to talk about Woodside? There is no publicly disclosed evidence she (or her group) have ever done anything violent - so the optics of this are certainly that it is attempting to suppress them for their activism (and it is very reasonable to ask the government to prove otherwise).

Charging someone with something that arises from law enforcement actions without justifying the original action is a classic smokescreen. It’s similar to charging someone with resisting arrest without explaining what they were under arrest for in the first place. Now it is possible they had a legitimate reason for the search warrant in the first place (after all, it would have needed judicial approval) - in which case, it is time for that to be provided. That said, I don’t think powers requiring handing over information like passwords that are held in the mind, to be used against the person handing the password over, should exist. At the very least, if the ciphertext can be safely backed up, the law should allow both parties to get legal advice and argue in court about whether the credential needs to be given up before it becomes a legal requirement.