as the Harrington Sound arson case moved into the sentencing phase.

Lawyers fought hard to counter the probation officers' recommendations of committal to a youth home for each of the three teenagers who admitting setting fire to paper in the school on February 19, 1999, causing $1.3 million worth of damage.

In addition to the millions of dollars worth of damage caused, the fire disrupted the second half of the school year for most students.

Juvenile Court Magistrate Carlisle Greaves heard for the first time yesterday the boys had broken into the school two weeks before and set one fire and doused it before leaving.

The teens, all 15, face the committal, or a maximum fine of $240, or probation, or a discharge.

The trio cannot be named nor can their school be identified for legal reasons.

All three, in school uniforms, appeared with their parents yesterday.

Two of the boys apologised for their actions, with one saying: "The incident has put a lot of people through a lot of stress.

"I realise the horror I have caused. I am deeply remorseful. I feel as though my life has been tainted. I will never do something so foolish again.'' The other boy told the court he "wasn't quick to notice that what I was doing wasn't right''.

Later he added: "I am angry at myself for being such an idiot and not using better judgment. I am very, very sorry for what I have done.

"Since the incident it has been on my mind every day. I will never do anything like it again.'' The boys pleaded guilty in October to setting fire to paper within the school on February 19 so that the building was likely to catch fire.

Lawyers fight to keep boys out of home After slipping away from a Scout meeting at the school, they broke into the building, and walked about setting fire to several bulletin boards.

Later, they put out fires and had returned to the meeting by 8.15 p.m. After smouldering for several hours, fire was sighted by a motorist shortly after 11 p.m.

During yesterday's hearing, probation officers Denise Carey, Norvell Furbert, and Zina Woolridge, were questioned stridently on the decision making behind recommending the boys be committed. In turn, each told the court they had come to their decision independently, but after a small amount of consultation and "gate keeping'' or fact checking.

Each stood by their decision to recommend committal to an "Approved Society'' even though it came after generally about five hours of interviews in November and December.

The boys had been interviewed and tested by psychiatrists hired by their families from immediately after the incident until recently.

Each psychiatrist recommended that the boy they had seen should not be sent to the home, one calling such a move "detrimental''.

Two of the boys' fathers said it was not until the day the boys were supposed to be sentenced on December 15 and the reports were presented to them did they realise committal was a strong possibility with the recommendation.

The recommendation prompted the boys' lawyers, Saul Froomkin, Delroy Duncan, and Mark Pettingill, to ask for the December adjournment and led to yesterday's marathon hearing.

One father told Mr. Greaves that although committal had been mentioned by his lawyer, "it was outside my imagination''.

While the fathers outlined their sons' academic performances, numerous extracurricular activities, and chores, two of them disclosed their disappointment with their sons' criminal actions.

One father told the court "I came this close to hitting him (his son)'', holding his forefinger and thumb a short distance apart.

Another said he yelled for "some time'' before setting about finding out the reason behind his son's behaviour.

"I decided that he would have to pay all the costs for this here,'' he said, meaning the lawyer's fees. "He has made some contribution. It's going to take a long time.'' The defence lawyers -- who are certain to address committal further in the final day of the case next Wednesday -- fired dozens of questions about the compiling of the reports and the handling of the cases.

The lawyers took different tacks, with Mr. Duncan calling two character witnesses, and Mr. Pettingill refusing to put his client on the stand nor calling the boy's father.

Crown counsel Patrick Doherty's role throughout the day was reduced to one of an observer, with Mr. Greaves sharply telling him that sentencing was the purview of the court and "prosecutors are for trials'' and to read the facts upon a guilty plea.

The lawyers will offer mitigation for their clients and the panel is expected to deliver the sentence next Wednesday.