In a contentious ruling, the High Court in the UK has upheld the government’s decision to authorise the use of Pava, a synthetic form of pepper spray, in young offender institutions (YOIs) housing children as young as 15. The move, which has faced widespread criticism from advocacy groups, was challenged by the Howard League for Penal Reform, but the court ultimately sided with the government.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Calvers, stated that the then-Justice Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, had sought to ensure that the use of Pava would be a “last resort” and that thorough safeguards would be in place. However, the Howard League and other organisations have raised serious concerns about the potential for disproportionate use against disabled children and those from ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as the risk of increasing overall violence within the institutions.
The rollout of Pava in YOIs came amid growing demands from the Prison Officers’ Association (POA) to protect staff from attacks. Mark Fairhurst, the national chair of the POA, welcomed the court’s decision, arguing that those who wish to remove any form of protection for staff “should hang their heads in shame.”
The ruling has been met with disappointment from the Howard League, whose chief executive, Andrea Coomber, acknowledged that while the government has implemented additional safeguards, the organisation continues to have “serious reservations” about the long-term impact of using pain-inducing techniques against children in custody.
The use of Pava in prisons has been a contentious issue, with claims of disproportionate use against disabled and ethnic minority prisoners. The government’s own “use of force” evaluation report found that black prisoners were nearly twice as likely as white prisoners to experience Pava and baton use.
The decision to allow Pava in YOIs has further heightened concerns about the treatment of young offenders in the UK justice system. Advocates argue that the use of such force-based measures could have lasting psychological and physical consequences for vulnerable young people, and that alternative, more rehabilitative approaches should be prioritised.
As the debate over the use of Pava continues, the impact on the well-being and rights of young offenders in custody remains a pressing issue that will likely continue to be the subject of intense scrutiny and debate.
