Ulez vigilante who encouraged Londoners to damage enforcement cameras avoids jail

Woolwich Crown Court heard how the 43-year-old shared a post in a closed anti-Ulez Facebook group in April 2023 which encouraged members to damage and destroy the cameras.

Father-of-three Nicholls, of Foots Cray High Street, Sidcup cried in the dock when he was handed the suspended sentence.

The court heard how the defendant sent an email on May 5 2023 to Yunex Traffic intended to cause "distress or anxiety."

Prosecutor Charles Evans told the court Nicholls’ note said: "If I see that little group of sad electricians (repairing cameras) I will smash each and every one of them in the face."

According to their website, Yunex’s infrastructure and technology have been "at the core" of Ulez, as well as similar schemes in Birmingham and Portsmouth.

A search by detectives carried out at the defendant's home found parts for two Ulez cameras.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Drivers flout Low Emission Zone rules as repeat offender prefer to pay £1,380
• Woke university tells students to stop saying 'husband and wife' because it isn't inclusive enough
• 99-year-old threatens to chain herself to All England Club to stop Wimbledon expansion - 'Let them arrest me'

Mitigating, Claire Cooper told the court her client had never been on the streets causing damage to cameras himself. She told the court the parts were likely to have been brought into his home by other anti-Ulez campaigners who had previously gathered there.

Nicholls was handed suspended jail sentences of 10 months for sharing the social media post and 18 weeks for the threatening email, to run concurrently.

He was ordered to pay £1,630 in prosecution costs, £5,000 in compensation to Yunex Traffic and a £187 victim surcharge. He agreed to pay the £6,817 total in instalments of £200 per month.

The defendant will also have to carry out 15 days of rehabilitation activity requirements and 150 hours of unpaid work.

Recorder Andrew Hammond said: "The right and wrongs of Ulez are not a matter for this court but in any event this case is not about Ulez but the rule of law. Your email) was a deliberate attempt on your part to intimidate other people. These people you threatened were employees performing something akin to a public service.

"They have the right to to perform their jobs without fear of intimidation or threats of violence. These offences were the result of your poor temper and control, and poor consequential thinking on your part."

A spokesperson for Transport for London (TfL) said: “This was a morally reprehensible attempt to disrupt a scheme that is helping millions of Londoners to breathe cleaner air. Toxic air leads to children growing up with stunted lungs and is linked to people developing dementia, cancer and other serious health conditions.

"Most poignantly it is attributed to thousands of premature deaths.We hope this sentence will act as a warning to those considering breaking the law and engaging in acts that could result in serious harm to themselves and others."