ALAN BOYD SENTENCED IN DUNDEE FOR SEXUAL OFFENCES AND THREATS

In December 2016, Alan Boyd was charged with threatening and abusive behavior. He appeared at Dundee Crown Court on Monday, 12th December, where he was sentenced to 175 hours of community service, to be completed within six months.

Back in June 2014, Boyd, a stonemason, was convicted of breaking into a customer's home and sexually assaulting her, as well as attacking a teenage girl shortly afterward.

Boyd, 49, of High Street, Ceres, Fife, was regarded as a respected businessman in north-east Fife and often traveled across the country for his work. During a trial held on Wednesday, it was revealed how Boyd first targeted his initial victim after she hired him for work at her residence. He followed her to her home in Ceres, then blocked her path and refused to let her pass on August 18, 2012.

According to court proceedings, Boyd forced his way into the woman's house, grabbing her around the waist, repeatedly attempting to kiss her, and feeling her bottom. The attack was preceded by months of harassment, during which Boyd made numerous sexually suggestive comments.

Three weeks later, Boyd attacked a 16-year-old girl in the same village. On September 9, 2012, he followed her and prevented her from passing, then inappropriately touched her and exposed himself. The trial also detailed that over an eight-month period, from December 2010 to August 2011, Boyd made multiple sexual comments and gestures towards this girl and another child.

Boyd denied the four charges against him but was found guilty after a trial. His defense lawyer, George Donnelly, pleaded with the court not to imprison Boyd, stating, “He is a man who travels across Scotland for his work, lives well, and provides for his family. He would comply with any condition of a community payback order.”

However, Sheriff Charles Macnair QC responded that a prison sentence was the only appropriate remedy. Boyd was sentenced to seven months in prison. The sheriff explained, “These offences were committed on different dates, and the communications offences took place over a period of time. The first complainant had initially invited you into her house because of your work. On the night in question, you forced your way in—she was entitled to keep you out.

Considering the nature of these offences, especially the age of the second victim and the intrusion into the first victim’s home, there is no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence.”