High Court grants judicial review of government’s decision to use PAVA spray in children’s prisons

The High Court has granted the Howard League for Penal Reform permission to challenge the government’s decision to authorise the use of PAVA spray in prisons holding children, fast-tracking the case to be heard before the end of the year.

Lawyers acting for the Howard League applied for a judicial review of the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to introduce the chemical irritant into three young offender institutions (YOIs) in England: Feltham A, Werrington, and Wetherby. PAVA spray is already operational in Werrington and Wetherby and is expected to be rolled out to Feltham A shortly.

PAVA, classified as a prohibited weapon under the Firearms Act 1968, can cause severe pain and a range of physical health impacts, including respiratory, eye, skin, and cardiovascular complications. Despite this, the Ministry of Justice announced in April that it would allow its use for a 12-month period in prisons holding boys as young as 15.

The Howard League argues that the decision was unlawful because the government failed to adequately investigate:

The potential physical and psychological harm caused to children in custody

The risk of discriminatory use, particularly against Black and minority ethnic children, Muslim children, and children with disabilities

Whether introducing PAVA spray would increase violence and worsen safety within youth prisons

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), Chief Executive of the Howard League, welcomed the High Court’s decision to expedite the case, saying: “Knowing that the rollout of PAVA spray has begun only strengthens our determination to challenge it – and we welcome the High Court’s decision to expedite the case.”

“Far from keeping children and staff safe, using PAVA spray will normalise violence and undermine trust between staff and the boys in their care. The government’s decision risks making conditions even worse for those living and working in prisons, and we are doing everything we can to prevent this from happening.”

When PAVA spray was piloted in adult prisons in 2018, evaluations found that it failed to reduce violence and damaged relationships between staff and prisoners. Experts fear these impacts could be magnified in settings with children, where building trust and positive relationships is crucial to rehabilitation and safeguarding.

Two clinical psychologists commissioned by the Howard League have warned that there is no existing research on the effects of PAVA spray on children in custody, but that available evidence on adults points to “an array of negative psychological and physical health consequences.” They have called for urgent research before introducing such measures to vulnerable children.

Official statistics from adult prisons indicate that Black and Muslim prisoners are disproportionately likely to be subjected to PAVA spray. Given the overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic children in custody, campaigners fear the same pattern will emerge in YOIs.

The Howard League has also raised concerns about the potential impact on children with disabilities, learning difficulties, neurodivergence, and mental health conditions, who make up a significant proportion of the youth custodial population.

The judicial review will be heard before the end of 2025. In the meantime, social work professionals, youth justice advocates, and children’s rights organisations are watching the case closely, warning that the government’s approach risks further traumatising children and deepening inequalities within the youth justice system.