Vandal ripped out the CCTV camera of vulnerable woman (From Echo)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting ECHONEWS to 80360, or email us »
Vandal ripped out the CCTV camera of vulnerable woman
8:30am Wednesday 11th July 2012 in Local News By Laura Smith
A VANDAL tore down a CCTV camera a day after it was installed to make an elderly woman feel safe.
Maynul Hussain admitted ripping down the camera after mistakingly calling at the 83-year-old’s home in Benfleet and realising he was being filmed.
The family of the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, only installed the camera the previous day, after a burglar broke into her house and exposed himself in January.
Hussain, 19, of Dove Drive, Benfleet, pleaded guilty to causing criminal damage when he appeared in Southend Magistrates’ Court yesterday.
Glenda Thompson, prosecuting, said: “Her family decided they would install CCTV, so if there were a return of the offender or any other incident, it would be captured on CCTV. Her son-in-law installed the CCTV, but the following day this defendant’s face was captured on it.
“He appeared at the front door of the address, appeared to tamper with the CCTV and moments later the picture disappeared.”
The court heard unemployed Hussain had been drinking in a nearby park, before deciding to call on a friend called Jason.
He knocked on the woman’s door, but was told no one of that name lived there.
When he realised he was being filmed, he tore down the camera and threw it into a ditch.
He was fined £135, £105 in court costs and ordered to pay £28.99 compensation for the damage to the camera.
Emma Grewock, defending, said: “Perhaps the only aggravating matter in this situation is the lady is elderly, and thus potentially vulnerable.”
Police confirmed a man had broken into the same address on January 23 and exposed himself.
Officers later arrested a man on suspicion of sexual assault, but released him without charge because of a lack of evidence.
An Essex Police spokesman said: “It remains an undetected crime.”
Comments are closed on this article.
Comments (17)
9:30am Wed 11 Jul 12
SpiffSpaff84 says...
9:56am Wed 11 Jul 12
APR says...
Just a shame that more thought wasn't given to it's positioning.
10:23am Wed 11 Jul 12
A Dad says...
These people go knocking on doors looking for an opportunity to rob old or vulnerable people.
11:07am Wed 11 Jul 12
R85 says...
2:01pm Wed 11 Jul 12
knightmare14 says...
5:40pm Wed 11 Jul 12
Last Poster says...
I take it that is that moron's defender. Has she got that dead wrong! I am truly fed up with these "do anything for money" defenders. Why should they be allowed to defend the indefensible. That camera may have been the only thing that saved this elderly woman from god only knows what. His very name offends me. Who knows how many years of this ladies' life are sacrificed to these kinds of threat. Do you think she will just get on with her life and forget the threat? Still, she can always go into a council care home. Oh no, that's right, the council is after closing those now. Oh well, she had a good innings I suppose!
6:54pm Wed 11 Jul 12
whataday says...
As for Emma Greenock his defence solicitor saying "Perhaps the only aggravating matter in this situation is the lady is elderly" - she should be held up for contempt. The aggravating matters are that she came up with such a despicable comment, the defendant told bare-faced lies, and if he wasn't up to no good then why did he feel the need to destroy the CCTV. and the sentence is too light.
7:58pm Wed 11 Jul 12
ddtthundersley says...
8:00pm Wed 11 Jul 12
ddtthundersley says...
8:05pm Wed 11 Jul 12
ddtthundersley says...
8:22pm Wed 11 Jul 12
Sean4u says...
Container, seats, pedals, generators, energy meters, he could have been sentenced to 20KWh to have been 'repaid' on consecutive days with a minimum 'ride' of 1 hour:
http://www.wlsam.com
/Article.asp?id=2490
867&spid=
Come on, you know it makes sense!
I expect he was defended by a duty solicitor or similar - I'd be surprised to hear he hired an expensive one. We have an adversarial legal system, so someone must speak for and someone must speak against, while it's someone else' job to pass judgement.
Imagine it was your job to speak 'for' - you would have to discharge your obligation towards your post or find another career. I don't envy the defending role in cases such as this one, although my eyes also narrowed a little at the implication that the victim's age was an unfortunate and unforeseen coincidence.
9:58pm Wed 11 Jul 12
Last Poster says...
11:45pm Wed 11 Jul 12
Trainman says...
5:02pm Fri 13 Jul 12
thesouthendone says...
5:45pm Fri 13 Jul 12
thesouthendone says...
8:22pm Fri 13 Jul 12
Virtuallintu says...
6:30pm Sun 15 Jul 12
termite1944 says...
He should be sent to a boot camp!