A TEENAGER started a fire to destroy evidence after breaking into a neighbour's house with a young accomplice.

Stephen Barrett, now 20, and the 14-year-old youth, urinated on a mattress before setting it alight in the lounge of the house in Pelton Fell, near Chester-le-Street.

Durham Crown Court was told the pair stole jewellery, compact discs and aftershave from the house in Wordsworth Avenue.

The neighbour returned home to find the lounge ablaze on the evening of May 15, last year.

When arrested, Barrett admitted having started the blaze to remove fingerprints from the scene.

He told police it was also to teach his neighbour a lesson because he had had problems with him, and added that he did not care if the man was in the house or not, or if he had been injured.

Donald MacFaul, prosecuting, said about £500-worth of furniture and fittings were destroyed, while Chester-le-Street District Council had to bear the costs of repair.

Mr MacFaul said that in a separate incident two months later, in Pelton Fell, Barrett struck another youth with a broom shank, breaking it over his back, and then confronted a police officer with a sock containing what had appeared to be a snooker ball.

The officer used CS gas spray to disable and arrest the youth.

Barrett admitted having placed a porcelain egg in the sock to carry "for protection", but claimed he could not recall threatening the officer with his home-made weapon.

Barrett, now living in Laurel Crescent, High Handenhold, near Stanley, with his pregnant girlfriend, admitted arson and burglary of his former neighbour's home, plus criminal damage, affray and possessing an offensive weapon.

Roger Moore, mitigating, said Barrett has "turned a new leaf" and had remained out of trouble since moving from Pelton Fell.

Judge Michael Cartlidge said he was taking "an exceptional course" by giving Barrett the opportunity to continue to keep out of trouble.

He put him on probation for two years and ordered him to perform 100 hours' community service.

He made no costs or compensation order because of Barrett's limited means