Less than two hours after being committed for arson to a juvenile home, three schoolboys were reportedly sent back home last night.

The Royal Gazette learned they were freed by the director of the Observatory Cottage, an Approved Society for juveniles, on the grounds it was not equipped to handle firebugs.

The news came after a day of strident argument for probation from lawyers Saul Froomkin, Delroy Duncan, and Mark Pettingill.

Just two weeks ago a counsellor told Juvenile Court Magistrate Carlisle Greaves the Observatory Cottage was full and would be so for one month.

The Observatory Cottage is believed to be the only facility approved by Government to handle offenders under age 16.

They would undergo counselling while still attending school. The boys admitted they set fires on February 19, 1999 leading to $1.3 million damage to the school.

They had left a boy scout meeting and wandered about the building setting fires and then dousing them.

But three hours later a motorist reported the building fully engulfed in fire.

Mr. Greaves was critical of legislation governing young offenders, saying with a shrug: "We are satisfied that both the (approved) society and the Minister have greater power than the court itself.

"And can on this very day, even if we set a specific time under (the act), release the children to their parents, psychologist, or any person they consider fit.'' He added: "Notwithstanding all that, this court must do its duty and let those others do their duty as they all see fit.'' Under the Young Offenders Act of 1950, juveniles stay at the home under the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. Greaves said he was left with few options within the juvenile laws, with only probation or committal being reasonable penalties.

"In all the circumstances we are satisfied after consideration of these provisions that committal to the approved society is not imprisonment,'' Mr.

Greaves told the packed courtroom.

He argued that if all young people with clean records and from good families set fire to buildings, they could expect to get only probation.

Schoolboy arsonists released "And what message would this court be sending to persons of lesser character, ability, and understanding if they were to commit the same or lesser acts?'' he said.

"We think that, in the circumstances, society is entitled to demand a sentence that tells other members of society that, regardless of their status or character they cannot intentionally, recklessly, or by gross neglect burn down their public buildings,'' he continued, "without the most serious penalty, even if they are virtual Sunday school boys.'' Mr. Greaves then told each boy in turn he would be committed to the home, and rejected releasing the boys to their parents pending an appeal.

He told Mr. Froomkin: "I find it difficult to get out of my mind the principle that where a sentence is long, bail pending appeal should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. Two years is long.'' With that, around 5 p.m., the boys were taken to Hamilton Police Station, processed, their school ties and shoelaces taken from them, and driven away in a marked Police car.

The lawyers raced to the Chief Justice's office in the Sessions House and then the Supreme Court Registry looking for a judge to "stay'' the immediate committal. The offices were locked.

The lawyers worked into the evening discussing the process of committal with Police and establishing what the boys needed at the home.

In the year since the fire, the lawyers had argued, grades had improved and the boys had done extensive community service, negating the need for a committal.

Mr. Froomkin, speaking in measured tones, said: "It's a gamble to send my client to an approved society. It would be a reactionary, retributive, draconian, and Dickensian punishment.

"It won't do him any good,'' he added. "If, beyond all expectations, he re-offends he can be brought back here under a probationary breach and the court will have no alternative (but to commit).'' Mr. Froomkin continued: "If this boy were 20 years old and it was a first offence like this then he would have gotten a discharge. Nobody would send him to jail.'' At least six Probation officers watched the sentencing and the aftermath in an obvious show of support for colleagues criticised about their recommendations.

Last night The Royal Gazette was reliably informed that the boys had been released.

The Royal Gazette will be publishing the full text of the Juvenile Court Panel's decision.