A teenager has been put on probation for six months after a vulnerable child was assaulted and made to lick the soles of shoes on film.
Connor Clark admitted assault causing actual bodily harm, though he did not commit the assault himself.
He was present and did not stop the incident, so he was jointly charged with the offence.
Two other teenagers, who are too young to be named, have previously been sentenced in juvenile court for the same offence.
Prosecuting advocate Hazel Carroon told the court that the victim was in the school grounds at Willaston Primary School after the school had closed for the day on February 22.
Clark was present along with the juveniles and the vulnerable child was told to lick the soles of the shoes of some of the people present.
He was then kicked in the face and fell backwards.
He was knelt on and struck a number of times.
As he tried to get up he was kicked again.
Clark, who is 17 and lives at Greeba Road in Douglas, did not assault the child but made no attempt to intervene in the actions of another person.
He was interviewed by police and said he had been at home with a co-defendant when they had received a call saying there was going to be a fight at Willaston School.
Clark said that, when he arrived at the scene, one of the other juveniles and the victim were ‘in each other's faces’.
He said that another defendant had then told him to lick his shoes.
Clark said he had been unaware that the victim was vulnerable and that he hadn’t assaulted him.
The court heard that he has no previous convictions.
Defence advocate Victoria Kinrade said that Clark had made attempts to usher the victim away from the scene, but accepted that he hadn’t made an attempt to intervene in the incident.
Ms Kinrade said that her client had played no active role in the incident and that it had been out of character for him.
She asked for credit to be given for the guilty plea, and asked magistrates to consider a conditional discharge.
The advocate went on to refer to a probation report, which she said made comments relating to Clark’s maturity.
Magistrates told the defendant: ‘This was a very nasty attack on a vulnerable individual.’
Clark was also ordered to pay £125 prosecution costs, at a rate of £10 per week.