Pole used to break CCTV cameras at neighbour’s
A man found himself in court after footage showed him smashing his neighbour’s CCTV cameras off the wall.
Matthew Hook used a long wooden pole to attack the cameras belonging to his next-door neighbour.
The footage showed him attacking the cameras and the pole was found in his back garden in Sandringham Avenue, Earl Shilton.
The attack was part of a long-running dispute and Leicester Magistrates’ Court heard on Monday that the neighbour who owned the camera had himself been given a caution for throwing bricks at Hook’s car.
To begin with, Hook, 35, had also been given a conditional caution by police, but it was on the condition he paid his neighbour £600 compensation, which Hook, 35, said was unfair.
That led to Hook receiving a court summons.
Hook pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage for the incident, which happened at about 7.30pm on May 30.
But after hearing the full story, the magistrates reduced the compensation to £186.76 – the amount the cameras could be bought for on Amazon.
Paul Tubb, representing Hook, said his client attacked the cameras because they were overlooking his property and invading his privacy.
He said Hook’s neighbour had lied to the police about the cost of replacing the cameras, wrongly claiming they had been installed professionally.
Mr Tubb said: “The only reason Mr Hook is here is when the complainant was asked to put a value on the cameras he said £600 and my client baulked at that.”
He said that during negotiations via the police officer in the case, the figure was lowered to £400 but Hook said that was still more than twice what the cameras were worth.
Mr Tubb said: “The police were lied to about the cost.
“I think it’s a bit unfair – there’s been an awful lot of misleading going on about what the value ought to be.”
Chairman of the bench, Atul Jobanputra, said: “The bench has a certain amount of sympathy.
“If your neighbour had been honest about the value you would have paid that and you wouldn’t have had to come to court.”
Hook was ordered to pay £185.76 to his neighbour and no costs or further orders were made.
MAN ENDS UP IN COURT BUT THE BENCH HAS SOME ‘SYMPATHY’