The children who admitted causing "severe'' damage which "disrupted the learning process'' at Prospect Primary School have been sentenced by the Juvenile Court Magistrate.

One boy was discharged from any charges after proof was shown the school's janitor had allowed him into the facility, while conditional discharges and compensation orders were handed out to five others.

But two girls -- allegedly the ones who caused the most damage -- were given probation.

Juvenile Court Magistrate Carlisle Greaves deliberated at length over what to do with one girl who is already a ward of the state because of an unsatisfactory situation at home.

The group was sentenced for causing $17,158 worth of damage to school equipment on June 24. The maximum in compensation a juvenile can be ordered to pay is $240.

Mr. Greaves started the proceedings by warning everyone the role of parents would be vital to the sentencing.

Mr. Greaves said all the children would receive different sentences because conflicting reports and summaries indicate the children played a variety of roles in the destruction of Prospect Primary.

Just as the initial September hearing, Probation officers and parents crowded the small court room.

Like that hearing, the children, generally around 12 and 13 years old blamed much of the damage on an eight year old, against whom charges were dropped.

Mr. Greaves said an older boy had "reasonable grounds'' to be in the school, and there was no evidence he committed any offence. Mr. Greaves withdrew the charges altogther.

For some of the children, probation officers found they were so well behaved that school counsellors did not even know they attended their respective schools. Others were found to be bullies and disruptive.

Youths sentenced for sacking school They were variously made to pay the maximum juvenile fine of $160 and or the maximum in compensation of $240.

Mr. Greaves told one girl "you are perhaps too strong for your own good at this time'' after reading that she told probation officers she did not care if her mother was dragged into court.

Mr. Greaves noted the mother was not in court and said part of the problem was the attitude she had in raising her child.

Just 13 years old and with a record for assault, having skipped school 47 times and late 51 times last term, she was put under a nighttime curfew while under probation.

In sentencing the other girl to probation, Mr. Greaves admitted that if he ordered the girl to be committed for a criminal act for a period of time, wardens would not have to keep her longer than they would keep her for the family problem.

"The question is whether she should be placed in probation or put in care,'' Mr. Greaves said. "We don't have a lot of options here. The parents obviously weren't paying attention to her. So (a concurrent) committal won't have a lasting effect.'' He also said he could not give the girl a sentence which was "out of sync'' with the other sentences and offences.

As per Mr. Greaves' instruction that the children should be made to clean up the mess, the children did return to the school.

But the final word on the matter was uttered by the principal, who said that if she "had to chose someone who would come back to clean up, it would be the eight-year-old who pleaded not guilty.

Prosecutors would have had greater obstacles proving the youngest boy was guilty because of the need to show that he could form the intent to commit the crime.

At eight years, he is just a few months into the age when it is possible for a person to intend a criminal act -- a hurdle prosecutors and Police may have thought they could not clear.