A FOURTEEN-YEAR-OLD girl who was "bored" joined in with her friend’s “daft” plan to wreck a secondary school in a horrendous vandalism attack.

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

District judge James Hatton told them: “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".

Judge Hatton said: “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."

Merseyside Youth Court heard that the pair, who both live in St Helens, were identified “because they had posted videos of causing damage within the premises on social media.”

The boy and girl appeared at Merseyside Youth Court, in Liverpool, todayThe boy and girl appeared at Merseyside Youth Court, in Liverpool, today (Image: St Helens Star)

Michael O’Kane, prosecuting, said that earlier on the afternoon of Saturday, November 25 last year 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.

Extensive damage led to insurance claim of more than £150k

Damage to the school included broken toilets, flooding from taps left running, fire extinguishers being let off, furniture thrown across classrooms, and a photocopier smashed beyond repair.

Also, 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, who cannot be identified due to automatic reporting restrictions that apply to youth court cases, both admitted burglary and criminal damage.

The girl also admitted causing £180 to a Ford Focus on April 12 this year by smashing the rear window with a padlock. 

READ > Woman arrested after house raided in drugs bust

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 passes sentences over 'appalling' vandalism attack

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.”

Judge Hatton told both of them: “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 “you can expect the consequences to be pretty severe.”