A serial sex offender who was jailed for 28 months after being found in a bedroom with a 15-year-old girl has lost his bid to appeal his sentence.
Josh Birnie earlier admitted breaching a Sexual Offences Prevention Order (SOPO) banning him from having contact with any child aged under 16 when he appeared at Aberdeen Sheriff Court in March..
Birnie, 24, had been under the order since March 2012.
Lord Carloway, the Lord Justice Clerk, sitting at the High Court of Appeal, heard that Birnie met the 15-year-old girl through her 18-year-old sister.
Birnie went with the woman to her parents’ home, where she lived, and went into her bedroom, where they met the younger sister.
He was in the girl’s company for 15-20 minutes and returned the next day, when they spent a similar amount of time together.
Lord Carloway heard it was the fifth time Birnie had breached the SOPO.
Birnie, of Aberdeen, was given a 36-month prison sentence, which was reduced to 28 months to reflect his guilty plea.
His lawyers lodged their intention to appeal his prison sentence on the grounds it was excessive and that the discount he received did not reflect the value of the guilty plea.
In April, the High Court of Appeal only allowed lawyers to proceed on appealing the discount.
They refused leave to appeal on the length of sentence, given that Birnie’s second breach of the order was “particularly blatant” and because of his overall record of flouting the terms of his order.
Despite the ruling, lawyers proceeded on the first ground of appeal, claiming that the 36-month sentence had been too high, given the guilty plea.
Lawyers also argued the offence was towards the lower end of the scale of seriousness and that Birnie had received “relatively modest sentences” for earlier breaches.
However, Lord Carloway found Birnie’s lawyers had failed to find “good reasons” for reinstating the grounds of appeal.
He said they had simply claimed the decision not to allow an appeal was wrong.
Lord Carloway added: “That is an insufficient basis upon which to ask this court to reverse the earlier decision. This application is therefore refused.”