A man involved in the brutal murder of a factory worker has failed in an Appeal Court bid to clear his name.
Kestutis Sliogeris was jailed for life for his part in the death of Paulius Jakovlevas, who was found dead in a stairwell at flats in Great Yarmouth in November 2013.
The 40-year-old, of Cromwell Road, was ordered to serve at least 17-and-a-half years behind bars after being found guilty at Norwich Crown Court in July last year.
Mantas Staponka, 24, was also convicted and jailed for a minimum of 16 years at Norwich Crown Court in July last year.
Sliogeris challenged his conviction at London's Criminal Appeal Court, with his lawyers arguing it was 'unsafe' because evidence which pointed to him - rather than Staponka - being the main attacker, should not have been allowed to go before the jury.
But his appeal was dismissed by three of the country's top judges, who said the trial judge was entitled to admit the evidence and the case against the Lithuanian was strong.
Mr Jakovlevas' body was found dumped in a stairwell at a block of flats in Wellesley Road. The victim, who was also from Lithuania, had been killed while drinking in one of the flats, following what police believe was a drunken row over a tattoo.
A post mortem revealed he had more than 80 injuries and had been kicked, punched and struck with a blunt weapon.
Officers found carrier bags containing blood-stained items and a letter addressed to Sliogeris in bins outside the flats.
His lawyers argued that a single piece of evidence against him, which implicated him in the attack, should not have been allowed to go before the jury because it was 'hearsay'.
But, dismissing the appeal, Lord Justice Elias said the trial judge was right not to exclude the evidence and to tell the jury it was for them to decide how reliable it was.
Sitting with Mr Justice William Davis and Judge Paul Batty QC, he added: 'The judge was entitled to conclude that it was in the interests of the applicant and co-defendant, Staponka, that this evidence should be admitted.
'In the circumstances, we need not go on to consider whether, had we found that the evidence had been wrongly admitted, we would have concluded that the verdict was safe in any event.
'We would simply observe that there is a very powerful argument that it was, given the strength of the case against the appellant.'
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here