Man kicked out of Forum for urinating in public then assaulted security guard after going again outside

The Forum in Norwich. Picture: ANTONY KELLY

The Forum in Norwich. Picture: ANTONY KELLY - Credit: Archant

A man who was thrown out of The Forum in Norwich for urinating on a chair assaulted a security guard after he was caught urinating for a second time outside, a court has heard.

Norwich Magistrates' Court. Picture: Denise Bradley.

Norwich Magistrates' Court. Picture: Denise Bradley. - Credit: Copyright: Archant 2016

Nathan Grint, 38, who had already been banned from the city centre venue, was found asleep on a chair.

Stacie Cossey, prosecuting at Norwich Magistrates Court on Thursday (November 29), said it was found Grint had urinated on the seat he had been asleep on.

She said he was removed by security before he then urinated against the building in full view of the public, including families.

Grint then attempted to re-enter The Forum but was stopped by security but he 'raised his arms' and with a closed fist struck one of the guards.

You may also want to watch:

Police were called following the incident on November 7 this year and he was arrested.

Grint said he had been drinking and admitted what he had done even though he could not remember it.

Most Read

Grint, of Bishop Bridge House, Norwich, appeared in court and admitted offences of assault, urinating in a public place and criminal damage on November 7 its year.

He also admitted breaching a conditional discharge which had been imposed in August this year.

Natasha Baker, mitigating, said he had been at a friend's house drinking and 'couldn't remember what happened' but was 'very remorseful'.

She said the assault offence was out of character for this defendant who accepted he should not have behaved how he did.

Grint was ordered to pay £100 compensation to the guard he assaulted.

He was also ordered to pay The Forum £100 in compensation for the damage he caused by urinating on the chair.

He was fined £50 for urinating in public and ordered to pay costs of £85.

There was no separate penalty for the breach of the discharge.

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter