A NEIGHBOURLY dispute in Oswestry had resulted in a conditional discharge for a woman who damaged a driveway and CCTV.

Anne Austin, 62, and of Cabin Lane, was found guilty of two charges of criminal damage under £5,000 in a dispute with her neighbour and victim Paul Johnson in incidents relating to February and April 2023.

She admitted to police in interview, which she attended voluntarily, that she applied a sealant to the driveway she shared with her neighbour ‘to improve the surface’ after accusing Mr Johnson of damaging it but later admitted she had no right to do it.  

READ MORE:

Ms Austin also admitted throwing water, spraying Christmas paint and then covering a CCTV camera in duct tape to ‘stop him filming me’.

However, Brian Welti, chairman of the bench at Telford Magistrates Court, decided not to punish the defendant, giving her a three-month conditional discharge, and also did not rule in favour of compensation or a restraining order.

But Ms Austin was ordered to pay £200 in costs and a £26 victim surcharge.

Border Counties Advertizer: Advertizer flash sale

The dispute, described as ‘two neighbours who just don’t get on’, started on February 10, 2023 when – according to Ms Austin – Mr Johnson removed a weed membrane in the garden which the defendant said left her portion of the driveway damaged.

The court heard that she purchased a sealant designed to improve the state of her driveway but she also added to Mr Johnson’s when she did not have permission to do so.

Mr Johnson, giving his evidence to prosecutor Andrews Mitchinson, said the sealant’s application had a negative impact on his property.

Then in April 2023, Austin was caught on a CCTV camera - installed that month – on a wall that faces her property, which she said she felt looked into her bathroom.

Under oath, she said that she was ‘convinced’ her neighbour could see into her property and had been ‘left scared’, deciding to cover it up so she could go about her day.

Both Mr Johnson and Austin admitted there was a communication barrier between the pair – the former said she was ‘impossible to talk to’ while the latter told the court that any questions to him should be put through a solicitor.

Chloe Byrne – cross-examining on behalf of the court – asked Mr Johnson if he was using the cameras to spy on his neighbour, which he flatly refused.

Get in touch

Share your views on this story by sending a letter to the editor. To get in touch email news@bordercountiesadvertizer.co.uk, or fill in the form on this section of our website.

Earlier, Mr Mitchinson had shown the court that Mr Johnson’s camera was installed with a filter blocking most of Austin’s property, save for some of her driveway, and only showed the strip of his land down the side.

He also flatly denied Miss Byrne’s suggestion that he was listening to the defendant.

Austin, who provided a number of character references, was also told by Mr Welti on multiple occasions that issues she was raising in court were not of their concern.