A-LEVEL students waiting for the result of mock exams were left disappointed when a laptop containing their work was stolen during a raid on a lecturer's home.

The computer, which included over 140 student reports as well as other information, was taken during a burglary at a house in Clayton-le-Moors in May. A total of £5,000 worth of goods was taken, including jewellery.

One of the teenagers behind the break-in was given a custodial sentence at Hyndburn Magistrates Court and told he must serve it following an appearance against sentence at Burnley Crown Court.

Judge Raymond Bennett told the 13-year-old, from Rishton, the sentence was "perfectly proper."

He said the teenager, caught by DNA, was a persistent young offender and already had convictions for burglary, criminal damage, arson, shoplifting, common assault and handling stolen goods.

He went on: "It makes any parent want to weep when you hear about a boy this age having involvement in so much crime. What the future holds one fears to think."

Judge Bennett, sitting with two magistrates, told the 13-year-old he did not seem to have learned but it was not too late for him to change his ways.

He went on: "If you commit crime, you must expect to be treated like a criminal."

He added the teenager should look at older men who were appearing before the court -- and think that could be him in 25 to 30 years time.

Judith McCullough, prosecuting, said many students had had to take their A level examinations not knowing what their mock results were.

The teenager was arrested and denied any part in the burglary but he was caught out after DNA was found on a cigarette butt found in the house.

He then made full admissions to his part in the raid. The appellant said another youth had kicked in the doors of the property.

Charles Brown, for the 13-year-old, said the other youth involved was more criminally experienced and the driving force behind the offence.

The appellant had been warned by his mother, who was an extremely supportive parent, not to mix with the youth.

He met the youth on the street and was told he would be attacked if he did not commit the burglary.

Mr Brown said the 13 year old was bright, intelligent, co-operative and frank. He was not a youngster who had rebelled and rejected help offered to him.

The barrister added if the offence was looked at alone, custody was the right sentence, but, if the boy's circumstances and potential were looked at as well as his response to a recent Action Plan Order, there was a great deal of hope for the future.