Man accused of Ulez camera explosion tells court his memory is ‘blank’

A man accused of causing the explosion of an ultra-low emission zone (Ulez) camera in south-east London has told a court he does not recall where he was or what he was doing at the time of the incident.

Retired electrical appliances engineer Kevin Rees is on trial at Woolwich Crown Court accused of damaging the camera in Willersley Avenue, Sidcup, by using a low-sophistication, improvised explosive device (IED) at about 6.45pm on December 6 2023.

The 63-year-old defendant was captured on CCTV leaving his home in Harcourt Avenue at 6.25pm that evening carrying a “bag of tools”, before returning at 7.05pm with the bag empty – but told jurors he has no recollection of his whereabouts during that time.

“It’s almost a blank,” he said as prosecutor Simon Denison KC cross-examined him on Wednesday.

Rees had told counter terrorism police, following his arrest on December 18, that he had been at a friend’s house on the evening of December 6.

But CCTV footage again showed Rees left his friend’s home address mid-afternoon that day and did not return in the evening, jurors heard.

“I have seen the CCTV of his house and my house so, obviously, I was not at his,” Rees said.

“But still, in my head, I was at his, for some reason.”

Rees further told jurors the bag he was filmed carrying to his car contained tools required for a different job at another friend’s house.

“You cannot tell us who that was?” Mr Denison asked.

“No, I can’t,” Rees replied.

“Wherever you went, you took your tools with you and you left them there, because you didn’t have them when you came back,” the prosecutor continued. “So where did you leave your tools on the evening of December 6?”

“Good question,” Rees replied.

“Can you explain why, if you left your tools at a friend of yours, that friend would not get back to you and say, hey, you have left your tools at mine?”

Rees answered: “Your guess is as good as mine.”

Prosecution also asked Rees about screenshots the defendant took after returning to his home on the evening of December 6.

“At 7.15pm, so within 10 minutes of you getting home, you were on the local news sites reading about the entries related to a loud bang.

“You took a screenshot. That’s not a coincidence, is it, Mr Rees?”

“Are you sure?” Rees replied, before adding: “First thing you do when you get home: check your phone, you have notifications, messages, and you look at them.”

Other screenshots were of comments on a local Facebook group about the explosion that had just taken place, the court was told.

One screenshot, taken at 7.16pm, showed a comment that read: “What was the loud bang just now?”

Another screenshot contained a comment that said the Ulez camera in Willersley Avenue had been blown up and “shot at someone’s house and porch”.

“They set all the dogs off. So loud,” another comment read.

Rees deleted all these screenshots the next day, the court heard.

The defendant said he deleted the screenshots because he took them accidentally, as he often did due to a functionality on his Samsung Galaxy which allowed him to take screenshots by swiping the screen in a particular direction.

“If you had actually checked, you would find that I have deleted dozens and dozens at the same time, but these are the only ones you printed out,” he told the prosecutor.

Rees agreed with Mr Denison that, at the time of the incident, he “strongly opposed” the Ulez scheme – and the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.

“I dislike him, dislike what he has done to London,” the defendant said.

The trial heard the Ulez camera had already been cut down by a man called Stephen Harwood-Stamper – who later pleaded guilty to criminal damage – at about 5.10pm on December 6 2023.

A different individual caused the camera to explode later on the same day, when it was already on the ground.

Rees previously told jurors he had never spoken to or heard of Mr Harwood-Stamper, and first learned of the explosion through a Facebook group for local news.

He is charged with one count of causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property, and three counts of possessing prohibited weapons.

The latter charges relate to “stun guns” the prosecution alleges were found at Rees’s home address during a police search following his arrest.

Rees denies all charges.

The trial continues.