A criminal trial in London is examining whether the explosion of a Ulez enforcement camera in Sidcup was the result of a deliberate act involving an improvised explosive device and whether a retired engineer is responsible. Kevin Rees, 63, is accused of causing an explosion likely to endanger life after a Ulez camera in Willersley Avenue, south-east London, was damaged on December 6, 2023. Prosecutors rely on CCTV footage, phone data and post-incident online activity to reconstruct events, while the defendant says he cannot remember his movements at the critical time and denies all charges. The case is being heard at Woolwich Crown Court and also includes allegations of illegal possession of prohibited weapons. The situation has been reported by The WP Times, citing information from the Standard.
Ulez camera explosion in Sidcup: what happened and why it matters
The incident took place in Sidcup, within the London Borough of Bexley, an area covered by London’s ultra-low emission zone. Ulez cameras are a core element of Transport for London’s system for enforcing emissions standards, using automatic number plate recognition to identify non-compliant vehicles.
According to the prosecution, the camera on Willersley Avenue was targeted twice on the same day. The first act occurred in the late afternoon, when the camera was physically cut down. The second, several hours later, involved an explosion after the camera was already on the ground. Police treated the later incident as more serious due to the alleged use of an improvised explosive device, prompting the involvement of specialist officers.
Timeline of the December 6, 2023 Ulez camera incident
| Time (approx.) | Event |
|---|---|
| 5.10pm | Ulez camera cut down from its pole |
| 6.25pm | Kevin Rees leaves home carrying a bag |
| 6.45pm | Explosion damages the fallen camera |
| 7.05pm | Rees returns home |
| 7.15–7.16pm | Screenshots taken of local reports |
Prosecutors say this sequence places Rees outside his home at the time of the explosion. The defence argues that the timeline alone does not establish who caused the blast.
Who is Kevin Rees and what charges is he facing
Kevin Rees is a retired electrical appliances engineer who lived a short distance from the scene. He was arrested on December 18, 2023, and later charged with:
- Causing an explosion likely to endanger life or cause serious damage to property
- Three counts of possessing prohibited weapons
The weapons charges relate to stun guns allegedly found during a police search of his address. Under UK law, stun guns are classified as prohibited firearms, and possession is a serious offence.
Rees has pleaded not guilty to all counts.
CCTV evidence and movements on the evening
CCTV footage forms a central part of the prosecution case. Jurors were shown images said to depict Rees leaving his home in Harcourt Avenue at 6.25pm carrying a bag described in court as containing tools. He was then seen returning around 7.05pm, with the bag appearing empty.
When asked about his movements, Rees told the court he could not recall where he had gone. He initially told police he had been at a friend’s house, but later accepted that CCTV evidence did not support that account.
He told jurors his memory of the period was unclear, describing it as “almost a blank”.
The bag, the tools and gaps in recollection
Rees said the bag contained tools intended for work at another friend’s house, but he was unable to identify that person. Prosecutors questioned why no one had contacted him about tools being left behind.
The defence position is that incomplete recollection does not prove involvement in the Ulez camera explosion, while the prosecution says the absence of a clear alternative explanation strengthens its case.
Phone activity, screenshots and online reports
Digital evidence presented to the court shows that shortly after returning home, Rees accessed local news websites and Facebook groups discussing a loud bang in Sidcup.
Screenshots taken around 7.15pm captured posts asking about the noise and claiming a Ulez camera in Willersley Avenue had been blown up. These images were later deleted.
Rees said the screenshots were taken unintentionally due to a swipe function on his phone and that he frequently deleted accidental images in bulk.
Connection to earlier damage and other suspects
The court heard that the Ulez camera had already been cut down earlier that afternoon by another man, Stephen Harwood-Stamper, who later pleaded guilty to criminal damage.
Prosecutors say the explosion later in the evening was carried out by a different individual. Rees told jurors he did not know Harwood-Stamper and first learned about the explosion through local online discussions.
Ulez opposition and alleged motive
During evidence, Rees accepted that he opposed the Ulez scheme and criticised the policies of London mayor Sadiq Khan. The prosecution has cited this opposition as possible motive, noting that Ulez infrastructure has been targeted in multiple boroughs since the scheme’s expansion.
The defence has stressed that holding strong views about Ulez does not amount to evidence of criminal conduct.
Addresses, institutions and verification details
- Incident location: Willersley Avenue, Sidcup, London Borough of Bexley
- Defendant’s address referenced in court: Harcourt Avenue, Sidcup
- Court: Woolwich Crown Court, 2 Belmarsh Road, London SE28 0EY
- Prosecutor: Crown Prosecution Service
- Investigating authority: Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command
Court listings and outcomes are published through official UK Courts and Tribunals Service channels.
How authorities respond to Ulez camera attacks
When a Ulez camera is damaged, Transport for London reports the incident to police. In cases involving suspected explosives, procedures typically include:
- Securing the area
- Specialist assessment of the device
- Review of CCTV and vehicle data
- Analysis of digital evidence
These steps are intended to determine responsibility and assess any wider public safety risk.
What happens next in the trial
The trial at Woolwich Crown Court is ongoing. Jurors will decide whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on each charge.
A conviction for causing an explosion likely to endanger life carries the potential for a significant prison sentence, as do convictions for possession of prohibited weapons.
For London residents, the case highlights how seriously the justice system treats attacks on public infrastructure, particularly where explosives are alleged. For motorists affected by Ulez, it shows that disputes over environmental policy are being addressed through the courts rather than political debate.
The verdict will determine individual responsibility, but the case already underscores the legal consequences of targeting Ulez enforcement systems.
Read about the life of Westminster and Pimlico district, London and the world. 24/7 news with fresh and useful updates on culture, business, technology and city life: Where did Amazon warehouse disease outbreak occur in Coventry with NHS and UKHSA testing confirmed