A sex offender who attempted to lure young girls to his home with the promise of ice cream and money has tried to have part of his punishment removed.
Biju Mathew was put on the sex offenders register, placed under supervision and ordered to take part in the moving forward making changes programme after he was convicted of preying on schoolgirls at an Aberdeen park.
But yesterday he tried to plead with a sheriff to put a halt the social work involvement as he felt it was “too hard”.
Mathew approached the schoolgirls in August 3, 2014 and asked them for a kiss. He also made explicit and sexual comments towards the pair before trying to tempt them away from the play equipment.
When the girls rejected him, the father-of-three tried to entice them into visiting his home by offering them £25 each and ice cream. Mathew even gave them his address and pointed out his house from the park.
The Indian national denied committing the offences and claimed the children fabricated the story as they were racist towards him and his sons.
But Sheriff Kenneth Stewart took just two minutes to find the devout Catholic guilty “without any hesitation” after trial.
He said the details the children gave during their evidence about what was said by Mathew could have “only come from the lips of the accused”.
Yesterday Mathew, of 34 Balgownie Way, Aberdeen, appeared back in the dock at the city’s sheriff court so Sheriff William Taylor could be told of his progress.
Representing the sex offender, solicitor Mike Allan said his client was really struggling with his punishment due to the language barrier and that he needed an interpreter for every session.
He said his Mathew was finding the consultations “too hard”.
The court heard since Mathew was sentenced his wife and children had left and moved to England.
Mr Allan said his client, who suffered from diabetes, heart and liver problems was also struggling to look after himself and complete his punishment at the same time.
Sheriff Taylor said: “My reading of the report is ‘oh gosh, this is really difficult because I need an interpreter’ and that’s about it. That is not a good enough reason for me to remove the supervision requirement.”
He refused to remove the supervision element.
