A MAN accused of being the masked robber who carried out raids at a Greenock off-licence and bookmaker's has been acquitted by a jury.

Kenneth MacKenzie was picked out by victims of the armed hold-ups from separate and differing photo ID parades, but they told a trial they couldn't be completely sure that he was the man responsible.

Greenock Sheriff Court heard how a robber had the lower part of his face obscured by a scarf during the raids at the Liquor Shed on West Stewart Street and Betfred on Newton Street on April 25 and 29 respectively.

Police — who carried out a 'height analysis' following the robberies — concluded that the suspect was 5ft 4ins in height, but Mr MacKenzie is several inches taller.

Greenock Sheriff Court was told that officers had issued a 'nationwide' alert for a small man with a Liverpudlian accent, based on information received, but Mr MacKenzie is not English.

A 21-year-old man who was working solo at the Liquor Shed allowed a scarf-wearing man inside at closing time, thinking he was a customer, but he jumped onto the counter, produced a knife and demanded the till takings before making off with £400.

A male Betfred employee, also 21, handed the raider 'bundles' of cash totalling around £3,000 from a safe while his female colleague was seen on CCTV footage to be in a highly distressed state.

Prosecutor John Penman argued that the witnesses were in close proximity to the robber, had multiple opportunities to see the upper part of his face and had 'eyeballed' him.

He pointed out that both men had independently picked out Mr MacKenzie as being the culprit.

Defence lawyer Ian Sievwright (corr) urged the jury not to discount the police evidence that officers had 'broadcast nationwide' a description of the robber being a 5ft 4ins tall Scouser.

Mr Sievwright said: "It has been established that this man is neither 5'4", nor does he speak with a Liverpool accent.

"The height analysis carried out by a detective constable is a very important piece of evidence.

"Another detective went to the accused's house with a warrant looking for evidence. Nothing."

The solicitor added: "I'm tempted to say this is a case of mistaken identity, but it doesn't even amount to that."

He asked the jury: "Would you be happy if you were in the dock and a verdict of guilty was returned on this evidence?"

Mr MacKenzie — who was remanded in custody following his arrest over the robberies — had the case against him found not proven by a majority verdict.