The Supreme Court yesterday overturned a Magistrate's decision to acquit two teens who allegedly assaulted a teacher.

And Puisne Judge Richard Ground sent the matter back to Juvenile Court with an order that Magistrate Cheryl-Ann Mapp convict the teens of common assault and sentence them.

The Royal Gazette understands that the former Warwick Secondary students -- who cannot be named for legal reasons -- are scheduled to return to Juvenile Court this morning.

The Attorney General's Chambers launched the appeal after Mrs. Mapp ruled there was not enough evidence to prove that the two males -- 15 and 13 -- acting together unlawfully assaulted Victor Coggin and thereby did him bodily harm on March 4 in Warwick.

During their summer trial, Mr. Coggin testified that he was on lunch duty at the school's main gate on March 4 when he encountered the older student, who was suspended, and warned him not to enter the property.

"I asked him to leave but he began to circle me,'' the Barbadian teacher said. "I suggested he stop his activity, but he continued. So I decided it was best not to confront him. I decided to return to the school and get an administrator.

"As I moved from the gate he would ride his bicycle past me, turn around, and ride it straight back at me and at the last minute swerve off. He repeated that a number of times.

"I warned him about four times then he rode straight at me again. I put my hands out (for protection), then all I remember after that is I was getting off the ground.'' Mr. Coggin required hospital treatment for numerous cuts and bruises to his face. And he told the court that as a result of his injuries he continued to suffer headaches and needed outpatient treatment for a sore thumb.

But Victoria Pearman, who represented the older student, argued that the prosecution had not produced "one shred of evidence'' proving that her client was responsible for the teacher's injuries.

Mrs. Mapp acknowledged that an assault had taken place, but ruled that the court was unable to find two teens acted together.

But Mr. Justice Ground, in a written judgment handed down yesterday, said the court should have convicted each of common assault under section 496 of the Criminal Code.

He noted that the section stated: "Where a person is charged with an indictable offence, and part of the charge is not proved, but the part which is proved constitutes a different offence, then the accused person may be convicted of the offence which he is proved to have committed, although he was not charged with it.'' The Supreme Court judge also dismissed Ms Pearman's argument that there was no evidence to support a finding that her client was guilty of even common assault.

"The (Juvenile) court expressly stated that it found the complainant to be a witness of truth, and the tenor of his evidence was that the first respondent deliberately rode his bicycle at and into him,'' Mr. Justice Ground said.

"That is sufficient to support the charge of assault.''