A TEENAGE burglar responsible for 16 break-ins has been given five months to turn over a new leaf.

Burnley Crown Court heard Peter Hindley, said to have been denied the parental guidance and support most children took for granted, was responsible for an "unbroken catalogue of offending" - and a judge told him he had planned to send him to detention for 15 months.

Judge Raymond Bennett, sitting with two magistrates, said the bench was probably making a complete mistake in deferring sentence but in the long term it was hoped he would stop behaving in the way he had.

Hindley, then living at Baltic House, Waterfoot, had his case adjourned until August 6, after earlier aditting burglary. He had been committed for sentence by magistrates.

Kendal Lindley, prosecuting, said Hindley took £600 worth of property from a house on Booth Road, Waterfoot, during the day, last December. When the defendant was arrested in January, Hindley told police he had broken into the house, using a spade and sold the property for £170. The court heard Hindley had about 40 previous convictions. He had committed 16 burglaries.

Graham Campbell, defending, said without Hindley's admission, it appeared it would have been impossible to prosecute the defendant. The offence was committed very much on the spur of the moment when Hindley thought the house was empty.

None of the stolen property had sentimental value and there was no confrontation with the householder. The defendant regretted what he had done and knew he had placed his liberty in jeopardy.

Hindley had had an appalling start in life and the love and affection most children receive had been singularly lacking. He was upset with his parents and felt let down.

Things had now changed for the better, as Hindley had gone to live with a family and now had one to one care. He had taken to the family immediately.

Mr Campbell said Hindley had committed an unbroken catalogue of offending since 1995, but now wanted to turn over a new leaf and put offending behind him.

He went on: "It's patently clear that where there is supervision and guidance lacking and a teenager is left to his own devices, anti social and unlawful behaviour often follows, while close one to one supervision, where it can work, should be given the opportunity to work."

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.