A MAN who referred to a 13-year-old schoolgirl as 'a belter' and invited her to his flat has been CLEARED of any alleged criminality.

Dylan Elliott asked the girl and her 12-year-old pal how old they were after seeing them in a playpark and said he'd go looking for them if they didn't wait for him, a trial heard.

Elliott, 21, denied speaking to the children and insisted that he was in his flat on Greenock's Bawhirley Road with his girlfriend at the time — but the woman didn't back up his story.

Sheriff Eric Brown 'totally rejected' Elliott's alibi defence, declared he had 'no doubts' about the truthfulness of the schoolgirls but found him not guilty of breaking the law.

The lawman ruled that evidence to prove a charge of behaving in a threatening or abusive manner likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm had 'not been established to the required standard'.

Procurator fiscal Laura Mundell argued that Elliot's remark to the 13-year-old was 'highly inappropriate' and had a 'sexual undertone'.

But Sheriff Brown insisted that no offence had been committed under the charge put before him.

The girl, who is now 14, told the trial: "I said to the man that his dog was a belter and he said, 'So are you' back at me.

"We were just having a normal conversation and he said, 'Do you want to come back to my house'.

"I said, 'No, I'm staying with my friend'."

The youngster said that her 11-year-old sister had also been in the park at around 9pm on August 8 last year but left.

She said she was upset at her sibling's disappearance and thought Elliott might have had something to do with it, before discovering she'd ran to tell her friend's mum about the man.

The sister and the other girl also told Greenock Sheriff Court that Elliott, who was out walking his husky dog, had referred to the first girl as a 'belter'.

The girl said she felt 'relief' when she saw her friend's dad at nearby shops, adding: "It was because if he (Elliott) came back to grab us we had my friend's dad there to stop it."

Two of the girls positively identified Elliott as being the man the park more than a year afterwards.

The girl's friend said: "We asked the man what the dog's name was and he said 'Nilla'.

"He asked my friend to go to his house and she said no.

"After she said no he said I could go as well.

"He said he'd seen us the night before in the park. I was getting really scared.

"He said he was going to his house to put the dog in and if we weren't still in the park when he came back he was going to come and find us."

The first girl's sister said: "I was scared. I just thought something was going to happen.

"I ran to my friend's house to tell."

Elliott confirmed he had a husky dog by the name of 'Nilla' as described by the children.

Fiscal Mrs Mundell put it to him: "Is there another man who looks exactly like you, who lives in the area, with a husky dog called Nilla?"

Elliott replied: "No."

He added: "They made it up. I'm no' gonnae go into a park and start talking to weans."

Sheriff Brown told Elliott: "I did not find your evidence either credible or reliable and, therefore, I totally reject your defence of alibi.

"I do not doubt the veracity of the accounts of the witnesses."

However, Sheriff Brown said he was 'not satisfied' that Elliott had behaved in a threatening or abusive manner.

He noted that the initial verbal approach had been made by one of the children in remarking about the dog.

The sheriff decided that Elliott asking two of the girls their ages and his suggestion that they go to his flat did not amount to threatening or abusive behaviour.

Turning to the fear and alarm aspect of the charge, the sheriff said: "I accept there was apprehension on their part but the test is what a reasonable person would think.

"From the evidence, there was clear concern that the youngest girl had disappeared."

He added: "I am not persuaded that a reasonable person of that age would necessarily have suffered fear or alarm."

The sheriff said that it also had to be established that Elliott's behaviour was either 'reckless' or was 'intended to cause fear or alarm' and he ruled that the case 'also falls' on this aspect.

The sheriff found Elliott not guilty and told him: "You are entitled to the acquittal I now give you."