This post was originally published on this site.
A man accused of causing the explosion of an ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) camera in south-east London has told a court he believed he was arrested over anti-Ulez posts he made on Facebook.
Kevin Rees, 63, was arrested by counter-terror police after a low-sophistication improvised explosive device (IED) damaged the camera in Willersley Avenue, Sidcup, in December 2023.
Rees told Woolwich Crown Court he had no involvement and thought he was being detained because of his participation in “anti-Ulez” Facebook groups.
Rees denied one count of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property and three counts of possessing prohibited weapons.
“I assumed it was just the so-called Facebook police,” Rees, giving evidence on Wednesday, told the jury.
He said: “People you hear being arrested for making bad or inappropriate comments on Facebook pages – that’s well-known, as it’s been on the news. The thing is, I didn’t actually do anything wrong.”
When defence counsel Simon Ray asked: “Are you responsible for that explosion?,” Rees replied: “No, I’m not. Not something I would do.”
@andyclay4Jurors heard the camera had already been damaged earlier that day by a man called Stephen Harwood-Stamper – who later pleaded guilty to criminal damage.
Harwood-Stamper cut the camera pole down before someone else caused the camera to explode when it was already on the ground.
Rees, a retired domestic appliance service engineer, told jurors he had never spoken to or heard of Harwood-Stamper and first learned of the explosion through a Facebook group for local news.
When he was arrested 12 days later, Rees made reference to that explosion and asked officers if his arrest had “something to do with the anti-Ulez sites”.
“There was only one explosion that was on the news and that was the one in Sidcup,” Rees told jurors.
‘Boredom’
When interviewed by police on his whereabouts on the evening of December 6, Rees said he was at a friend’s house, where he was fitting a new kitchen.
However, footage from nearby CCTV cameras showed Rees left his friend’s home mid-afternoon and did not return in the evening.
He said: “I was 100% convinced I was at his house – as I still am now, in my head but I have seen CCTV of me leaving the property, so, obviously, I was not there.”
When asked why he was interested in Ulez cameras and the Facebook groups that opposed them, Rees replied: “Boredom, and, almost, a community.
“I’m retired, not much else to do – didn’t particularly interest me that much.”
The prosecution alleged three “stun guns” were found at Rees’s home following his arrest.
The defendant, of Harcourt Avenue in Sidcup, denied they were stun guns and told jurors he had made them because he enjoyed “tinkering about with electrical devices” due to his professional background.
The trial continues.
