High Court upholds decision to allow PAVA spray in prisons holding children

In a judgment handed down in January, Mr Justice Calver dismissed a judicial review brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform, which challenged the decision to permit the use of the chemical irritant spray in three young offender institutions in England – Feltham A, Werrington and Wetherby – for a 12-month period. The prisons hold boys as young as 15.

PAVA spray, classified as a prohibited weapon under the Firearms Act 1968, causes intense pain and temporary incapacitation. Its proposed introduction into the children’s estate has been widely criticised by organisations including the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), the Children’s Commissioner for England and HM Inspectorate of Prisons.

As previously reported in [publication name] last year, the Howard League sought judicial review on the grounds that the decision represented a serious escalation in the use of force against children, risked disproportionate use against Black and minority ethnic children, and could increase violence overall rather than reduce it.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Calver said the former Secretary of State for Justice, Shabana Mahmood, had been “closely involved” in the development of the policy and had insisted on strict safeguards. He noted that PAVA was intended to be used only as a last resort, where there was an immediate risk of life-changing or life-ending violence, and by a small number of specially trained staff.

The court heard that the decision had been “finely balanced”, reflecting the acknowledged risks of using PAVA on children. The judge accepted that the Ministry of Justice did not expect PAVA to reduce overall levels of violence and harm in children’s prisons, and that it could contribute to a longer-term escalation in violent behaviour. However, officials argued it could prevent serious immediate harm in rare circumstances.

Evidence presented to the court showed that the Secretary of State was provided with both an Equality Impact Assessment and a Child Rights Impact Assessment prior to making her decision in October 2024. These documents warned that Black children, Muslim children and children with disabilities were likely to be particularly adversely affected. The Secretary of State was recorded as expressing concern about disproportionate use, describing this as a “red line”.

Opposition to the policy has been widespread. Alongside BASW, the Youth Justice Board, Independent Monitoring Boards and 37 organisations and individuals working in youth justice and children’s rights publicly criticised the decision when it was announced in April 2025, describing it as a failure to safeguard children in custody.

While the judge found that stakeholders’ concerns had influenced the final policy – including limiting the number of staff authorised to carry PAVA and strengthening oversight – the Howard League said the ruling was deeply disappointing.

Andrea Coomber KC (Hon.), chief executive of the charity, said the decision highlighted “how toxic the prison system has become” for children. She warned that safeguards had failed to prevent misuse and disproportionality in the past, pointing to evidence that existing pain-inducing techniques have often been used outside policy.

She also raised concerns that, despite assurances given to the court, PAVA spray was already becoming a “normalised response” rather than a last resort, based on calls received by the charity from affected children.

The Howard League said it would continue to support children impacted by the policy and monitor the use of PAVA closely, including at the end of the 12-month pilot period, and would consider further legal action if necessary.

For social workers, the ruling is likely to intensify debate about the appropriateness of punitive, pain-inducing measures in settings that hold highly vulnerable and often traumatised children – and about the role of care, relationships and safeguarding in a system increasingly criticised for its reliance on force.