A PRIMARY school sports coach who was charged with indecently assaulting young boys by touching their private parts during a gym game has been found not guilty of all allegations.

Daniel Wilkie had been accused of targeting three six-year-olds as he tucked their t-shirts into their shorts while they were hidden from view beneath a piece of play apparatus known as a parachute.

But the youngsters were inconsistent with their evidence about what had actually happened to them and there was agreement with Mr Wilkie’s legal team that any momentary touching could have been accidental.

One child said in his evidence that he may have made a ‘mistake’.

The father of another boy told police in January that his son said that Mr Wilkie’s hand had ‘brushed’ his private parts as he was being tucked in, but months later he told a trial that it had been a ‘rubbing’ motion.

Defence advocate John McIlroy yesterday told Greenock Sheriff Court that the prosecution case had thrown up ‘more questions than answers’ and that Mr Wilkie, 26, was a ‘somewhat naive individual’.

The allegations arose shortly after Mr Wilkie — who had been involved in coaching at schools for 10 years without complaint until the alleged incidents — took a lunchtime games session with P2 children at an Inverclyde school.

He told the court that he did tuck children in during the course of a game called Sharks and Lifeguards to prevent them from getting friction burns on the gym’s wooden floor.

Mr Wilkie, of Brookfield Road, Port Glasgow — who took part in the game — also said that he tickled the youngsters during play sessions because they ‘love it’ and ‘can’t get enough of it’.

He had been accused of indecently assaulting the boys beneath the tarpaulin parachute on January 31 as they assumed the role of ‘sharks’, trying to pull other children towards them while ‘lifeguards’ attempt to save them by pulling them in the opposite direction. Mr Wilkie denied any inappropriate touching and insisted that he had only quickly tucked the children in after asking their permission in order to save time during the game.

He said: “I tell the children to tuck themselves in at the start of the session but they can come undone and if someone needs tucked in I’ll happily help them.”

Asked by prosecutor Lindy Scaife why he didn’t ask the children to tuck themselves in during the game, Mr Wilkie replied: “You’ve got 10 or 15 minutes to play the game and you’ve got to make sure everyone gets a turn of being a shark, so it’s quicker if we do it.”

The court heard that Mr Wilkie, who had never been in trouble with the police before, began his interest in sports coaching before he left secondary school and joined an apprentice-style scheme within Inverclyde Council after gaining college qualifications and eventually won a job.

"He said that he understood in ‘hindsight’ that he had put himself ‘in a difficult position, adding: “At the time I was not thinking anything malicious — everyone was just having fun.”

Mr Wilkie said: “Would I do it again? No I wouldn’t.”

Sheriff Derek Hamilton declared that the children and the father of one of the boys had been ‘credible’ in their evidence but ruled that their testimonies were not reliable.

The sheriff said: “This has been a difficult case and I don’t think that the Crown could have done much more.”

He added: “I cannot criticise the father or any of the parents. The father was a credible witnesses doing his best to tell the truth as he remembered it, but I don’t think he is reliable.

“He has got it in his mind that his son said something different from what he told the police, and I prefer what he told the police.

“Then we have the two other boys — one of them spoke to the first boy, and the two secondary boys don’t offer their position to their parents because they are asked about it.

Turning to the children’s evidence, they are back and forward with it.

“It all takes place under the parachute with pretty frantic activity going on around and the opportunity to something of a sexual nature must be very limited and very brief.”

Sheriff Hamilton said that Mr Wilkie’s evidence was delivered in a ‘frank manner’, adding: “He accepted in hindsight that he could have done things differently.

“I am not satisfied that the evidence is of a sufficiently high standard, and that is no criticism of the Crown, because we are dealing with six-year-old children who are alluding to things.

“Not proven is not an appropriate verdict here.”

The sheriff said that any touching was ‘nothing other than accidental’ and told Mr Wilkie: “Accordingly, I find you not guilty of all three charges.”