a youth who lobbed a Molotov cocktail at a beehive in the manor grounds of Kingskerswell church – destroying the hive and more than 50,000 bees – has been stung by a year's community order and compensation by South Devon Youth Court at Newton Abbot.

On Wednesday, 18-year-old Neville Frederick Cockerham, of 7 Carswells, Kingskerswell, was also hit with a month's curfew from 9pm-7am, ordered to attend a senior attendance centre for 36 hours and pay £760 towards the compensation and £300 costs.

Cockerham, who was 17 at the time of the offence on June 1 had, a week earlier, together with two 17-year-olds, pleaded not guilty to committing arson by destroying the beehive, valued at £480.

The bench found no case to answer against the others, but decided Cockerham had committed the offence and adjourned for reports.

After the hearing, his solicitor, William Parkhill lodged notice of appeal to the Crown Court.

On Wednesday, the bench also heard that he had admitted causing damage to the beehive on May 31 by throwing rocks at it, had denied but was found guilty of three criminal damage offences to vehicles in Kingskerswell on September 12 and had pleaded guilty to causing a nuisance on school premises in August.

He had a reprimand and warning for causing damage.

For all the offences, apart from the nuisance for which there was no penalty, Cockerham was given the community order, and for the criminal damage 30 hours at an attendance centre concurrent.

He was told to pay £760 towards the £1,955 compensation including £300 towards the £480 damage to the beehive, and £300 costs at the rate of £5 weekly.

The chairman of the bench, John Kiddey told him that he had shown a complete disregard for people and their property by causing a nuisance, noise and damage.

At Thursday's hearing last week, Cockerham said he became aware of the beehive two days before it was burnt down, when together with one of the others he had ventured behind the church.

'We were inquisitive. I had never seen one before. The next day we went back and we threw stones at it and I cracked one of the panes of wood on the side,' he said.

On that day he had been stung. He added that the following day he was in a group of six that went to the churchyard and he saw a bottle of petrol just before they were at Dobbin Arch Bridge. He was not sure who had it, although he had handled it.

'I was not too sure what it was for. A couple of people have got mopeds and I thought it might have been for that,' he said.

Questioned by Mr Parkhill he said to his knowledge no-one had said anything about setting fire to anything. On the far side of the beehive he had seen the two 17-year-olds passing the bottle between them. One of them had got out a lighter and lit the rag in the bottle and threw it towards the beehive where it initially bounced off and had picked it up and poured it over the beehive.

'It went up fast and I panicked a bit,' he said.

Asked if he brought the petrol; lit the bottle; set the beehive on fire; encouraged others to do it; he replied that he did not.

He maintained others were not telling the truth.

Cross examined by prosecutor Clifford Howard he denied he was upset because he had been stung.

Mr Howard: 'You put it on Facebook that you had got stung and were going to burn the bees?'

Cockerham answered: 'I did not. I think one of the others might have done it'.

Asked if he threw the lighted bottle at the beehive and that it was his intention it would act like a Molotov cocktail and set the hive on fire, he answered that it was not the case and that he was telling the truth.

For his client, Mr Parkhill said it was accepted that there was a group of young people who visited the beehive and it was destroyed but he contended it could not be established who had set it on fire.

He said there was no evidence to show that he caused it, assisted in causing it, or actively encouraged it.

Mr Parkhill said there was no identification of his client. 'The police chose not to do an identification parade. I do not know why,' he said.

He said one witness had originally been a suspect. 'You may think he was trying to cover his own backside, as others tried to do with varying degrees of success,' he told the bench.

On Wednesday, Simon Colman for Cockerham, said he had no previous convictions and had optimism of getting employment.