Man not guilty of Norwich hotel robbery

PUBLISHED: 13:28 17 October 2018

The Riverside Hotel on Riverside Road, Norwich.

The Riverside Hotel on Riverside Road, Norwich. PHOTO BY SIMON FINLAY

A man has been found not guilty of robbing £4,500 from the manager of a Norwich hotel.

Mykolas Dockevicius, 31, of Purland Road, Norwich, had denied robbery in the early hours of July 22, 2016 at the Riverside Hotel on Riverside Road in the city.

The jury of nine women and three men at Norwich Crown Court took four hours and 55 minutes to reach its unanimous verdict, acquitting Dockevicius of the charge.

After the verdict was read to the court by the jury’s foreman, Judge Andrew Shaw said to Dockevicius: “You are discharged, you are free to go.”

Dockevicius, wearing a leather jacket and jeans, left the court.

During the trial, his lawyer had said he was the “innocent victim of a series of circumstances”.

The prosecution had alleged that two men put a towel over the head of the manager of the hotel, punched him repeatedly, seized the money and escaped.

Oliver Haswell, prosecuting, had said that the manager, despite having a towel put over his head, managed at one point to see two people dressed in black, wearing black balaclavas, in his room.

The court had heard that when the men fled the scene they left some of the cash on the floor, and also found in the room was a black rubber glove which when analysed was found to have Dockevicius’ DNA on it.

His phone was also analysed and it was found that the signal showed he had been in the area at the time of the robbery, the court had heard.

Peter Eguae, for Dockevicius, had said there were too many gaps in the prosecution case to prove his client was guilty.

Dockevicius had said the innocent explanation for the mobile phone evidence was that on the night of the robbery he was drinking at home with friends before they went to Prince of Wales Road.

They were turned away from clubs there because they were too drunk and instead bought more beer and drank it on the street, the court had heard.

The explanation for his DNA on the gloves was that he was working at the time at a carwash where he had to wear gloves which could have been picked up by anybody and used in the robbery. the court had heard.

There was quite a lot of change in the personnel at the carwash, the court had been told.

Most Read

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Most Read

Latest from the Eastern Daily Press

Hot Jobs

Show Job Lists