With London boasting an astronomical number of cameras to catch terrorists, what heinous crime did these anti-terrorist cameras help the police catch the villain Paul Griffiths (and an accomplice) doing ?

They aren't 'to catch terrorists'. Some were installed, years ago, in areas which were likely targets for terrorists e.g Oxford Street and mainline railway stations, but the vast majority are for ordinary law enforcement.So they are for everything in law and order e.g drunken behaviour, vandalism, littering, shoplifting, pickpocketing, crowd control as well as frequently being evidential aids in more serious cases, such as child abduction.

Some instances seem quite petty and a waste of resources; one woman was on a helicopter camera and prosecuted for eating while driving ('failing to maintain proper control of a vehicle') and acquitted; but there are lots of instances of dog-fouling of public places and of littering (paper,by humans, not puppies, by bitches).Those are accepted by most people here as normal and proper cases.The behaviour can and does amount to a nuisance to the general public.

At a guess, as he had "an accomplice" (sic), it's a case of a dog fouling somewhere.(Not likely to be the police catching someone, but an employee of the local town council)

(Perhaps I should add that these cameras are universal in Britain, not just in London but in every town, and many a sizeable village,which is how we are the most observed people in the world)

Yes, it was indeed for dog fouling, and then for skipping a court appearance. He claims that his dog, Mitzy, only whizzed and did not do a "doody". LOL.

Thanks for the answer !