THE Alloa couple who embezzled £60,000 from an elderly relative have narrowly avoided prison time.

Andrew and Jean Rough, both former police officers, were convicted by a jury at Stirling Sheriff Court but were shown mercy when finally sentenced last week.

The duo were told that custody was among the options available to court, after being found guilty by a jury earlier this year.

But the complainer, Andrew's mother, pleaded with the sheriff not to jail her son and daughter-in-law.

The couple drained the 86-year-old's bank account over a period of almost five years, leaving her with 37 pence – and causing a direct debit to bounce and the old lady's phone to be cut off.

Prosecutors described their actions as abhorrent and said they used the widow "like a cash machine".

They spent her money on the mortgage of an up-market new home, loading up with hunting, shooting and fishing supplies, and getting a brand new game gun.

They also lashed out on deposits on a garden summer house and laser eye surgery, and up to £700 a month buying trolley-loads of groceries in what the prosecution described as "their version of Supermarket Sweep".

The Roughs, both 58, were found guilty by a unanimous verdict after a 10 day trial in August and warned about the possibility of a time behind bars.

But when they re-appeared at Stirling Sheriff Court last Thursday, Sheriff William Gilchrist instead ordered them carry out 300 hours of unpaid work and to pay the woman back £12,000 compensation each, under a three-year order.

Onlookers on the public benches muttered "disgrace" when the sentence was announced, but friends of the complainer and members of her family who were present refused to comment.

Sheriff Gilchrist told the Roughs that they had embezzled a substantial sum of money over a lengthy period of time – but after reading background reports he labelled them "naive" and "rash" and said he thought the complainer would have given them some of the money they stole voluntarily, if only they'd asked.

He told them: "In such cases it's inevitable that the court will start from the premise of a custodial sentence. However, I do not intend to send you to prison.

"A prison sentence effectively excludes any realistic prospect of compensation, and I think that's an important feature of what must happen.

"Your actions were dishonest, but I agree with the writer of the social work report that there were also problems of naivety, recklessness and negligence – rashness – in your decision-making.

"The jury clearly rejected your defence that you had Mrs Rough's consent to spend her money, but I think it likely that if you had sought her consent then she would have granted it, for at least some of the expenditure."

Sheriff Gilchrist said the psychological impact on Mrs Rough of the couple's "cavalier" behaviour had been considerable, as had the impact on her finances.

But he added: "I'm conscious that she did state that she did not want to see you go to prison. That is another factor I have taken into account."

He said he had also considered their ages, health, and lack of analogous previous convictions.

Earlier, defence advocate Lewis Kennedy, for Andrew Rough, said the complainer had specifically appealed for alternatives to jail. He asked for the case to be disposed of "more leniently and more compassionately than would otherwise be the case".

He said Rough had expressed "regret and shame", adding: "Prison might be a difficult experience for a former police officer."

Prosecutor Sarah Lumsden said it was "correct" that the woman had not wanted the couple to go to jail.

But she added: "She also didn't want her son to put her through a trial situation, and one can't forget that it's £60,000 worth of money that's been taken."

During the trial, the jury heard that the withdrawals began after the complainers' late husband, also called Andrew, was taken to hospital with a stoke and the old lady handed her son and daughter-in-law her bank cards to do her £30 weekly shop, and to collect money to pay her gardener and cleaner.

She also gave them power of attorney and handed over her bank statements to them unopened.

From September 2010 to July 2015 the pair made "repeated" withdrawals and purchases, taking up to £12,000 a year.

The complainer, who endured four-and-a-half days of lawyers' questions over a video link, said she had told them they could also use her cards for themselves "if they were stuck" – but not for anything big.

But Rough insisted he and his wife were free to use his mother's money however they wished.

The jurors rejected their account, with Miss Lumsden, the depute fiscal, summing up: "This was abhorrent, disgusting, disgraceful abuse of a lady in her 80s -- and it went on for years."

In addition to the other aspects of the sentence, the Sheriff Gilchrist imposed a conduct condition, banning the couple from having any contact with the woman for three years, unless at the old lady's express wish.

Outside court, the couple, from Alloa, refused to comment.

Andrew Rough said: "Absolutely nothing to say. We've said enough."

Prosecutors have since refused to rule out appealing Sheriff Gilchrist's decision not to jail the Roughs.

A Crown Office spokeswoman said: "As with all cases, the Crown will consider the sentence and give consideration to whether it might be unduly lenient."

The Crown has a right to appeal against "unduly lenient" sentences, though the Appeal Court has stated that such an appeal will not succeed merely because the Appeal Court considers that it would have passed a more severe sentence than the sheriff.

For an appeal to succeed, a sentence must be outside the range of sentences which a sentencer, taking account of all relevant factors, could "reasonably" have imposed.