Young teens cause £150k damage to Merseyside school and get caught after filming for social media

A ‘bored’ 14-year-old girl joined in with her friend’s ‘daft’ plan to wreck a local secondary school in a horrendous vandalism attack.

The young pair caused a massive £150,000 worth of ‘appalling’ damage - but they walked free from court on Tuesday (June 18) after each being given the maximum sentence - a 12 month referral order.

Liverpool Youth Court heard that the 14-year-old girl and 13-year-old boy from St Helens - who cannot be named for legal reasons - caused flooding and broke toilets at Rainford High Technology College and were identified ‘because they had posted videos of causing damage within the premises on social media’.

Speaking during the sentencing, District Judge James Hatton told the pair: “Because of your age and the nature of the offences I’m stuck with the sentence I can impose, a youth referral order. This is not to diminish how serious this is,” he said, adding that the 13-year-old boy had ‘no reason at all’ and the girl’s, was ‘pretty pathetic’.

“You caused a huge amount of damage which would have impacted on people going about their business in the days that followed and impacted on the school in terms of the money they had to pay out and increase in their insurance premium and pupils not able to use the facilities you damaged. All because you were bored and you had a daft idea,” said Judge Hatton.

Michael O’Kane, prosecuting, said that earlier that on the afternoon of Saturday, November 25 last yea,r the caretaker at Rainford High Technology College in Higher Lane, Rainford, ‘became aware that something was afoot because of calls being made from the school’. The police were called but by the time officers arrived the two young defendants had left but their social media led to their identification.

Damage to the school included broken toilets, flooding from taps left running, fire extinguishers being let off, furniture thrown across classrooms, a photocopier smashed beyond repair. Multiple classrooms were damaged and the school submitted an insurance claim in excess of £150,000, said Mr O’Kane. They also had to pay a £500 insurance excess, he added.

The duo both admitted burglary and criminal damage, and the girl also admitted causing £180 of damage to a Ford Focus on April 12 this year by smashing the rear window with a padlock. The owner, Sam Helsby, a football coach, was inspecting the pitch at the Bold Miners Club in St Helens, and noticed youths hanging around so went to lock up and noticed the padlock was missing.

She was identified as the culprit but when Mr Helsby approached her dad for compensation ‘nothing was forthcoming’. Her lawyer, Patrick Heald, said she has no previous convictions and a report spoke about a ‘number of personal circumstances’.

Judge Hatton asked the boy, who attends a different school and also has no previous convictions, how he would feel if he went and found it had been thrashed. “Not good,” he replied. “It says in the report that you are the person who came up with the idea. That is honest of you,” said the judge. When he asked if it had been a ‘moment of madness’, the boy agreed it had been.

Judge Hatton asked the girl why she had gone along with the plan she replied, “I was bored and had nothing else to do.”

He told her: “It is staggering that your reaction to boredom is to go and do something as appalling as this. You are depriving people of the right to go into their school and enjoy the benefits of education because of the damage you caused.”

Speaking to both defendants, Judge Hatton said: “I have read reports and I accept you had had various challenges but they do not excuse the behaviour you displayed.”

He ordered a total of £430 compensation from the girl and £250 from the boy, both of which will be taken from their fathers’ unemployment benefits.  Both dads were present in court.

“Legally it is your parents’ debt. Morally it is yours,” he told the defendants and suggested it should be taken from their pocket money or restriction of gifts. “Don’t go moaning to them about it, you have placed a significant financial obligation on your parents.”

The judge concluded by warning them that if they breach the referral order, they can ‘expect the consequences to be pretty severe’.