Howard League for Penal Reform v Secretary of State for Justice: High Court upholds PAVA deployment decision

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to the Secretary of State for Justice's decision to authorise the use of PAVA spray (pelargonic acid vanillylamide) in three Young Offender Institutions in England. The claimant, the Howard League for Penal Reform, argued the decision was irrational, breached the public sector equality duty, and failed to satisfy the Tameside duty to make reasonable inquiries.

The decision, made on 24 April 2025, permits specially trained staff at HMYOI Feltham A, HMYOI Werrington, and HMYOI Wetherby to deploy PAVA for a 12-month period. The youth custodial population has declined substantially over the past decade, from 1,216 in 2014 to just 430 by March 2024. However, those now in custody are predominantly older teenagers serving sentences for serious violent offences, with over two-thirds having committed violence against the person.

Serious assault rates increased by 58% between 2023/24 and 2024/25, rising from 74 to 121 incidents. These assaults frequently involve improvised weapons and multiple perpetrators, carrying real risks of life-changing injury or death. Youth Justice Workers lack the protective equipment available in adult prisons and operate in "soft uniform" with limited control equipment.

The decision-making process

Mr Justice Calver emphasised the extensive two-year process underlying the decision. The Secretary of State commissioned comprehensive research, including papers from Dr Ian Maconochie on medical effects, Dr Bosworth on evidence regarding PAVA spray, and a literature review by forensic psychologists. Multiple equality analyses were conducted in 2023, August 2024, and April 2025, alongside a Child Rights Impact Assessment in February 2025.

The Secretary of State was expressly informed that PAVA introduction was "not expected to reduce overall levels of violence but has the potential to reduce its severity". This understanding shaped the decision throughout, with the policy intended as an immediate response to life-threatening incidents rather than a long-term violence reduction strategy.

Comprehensive safeguards

The authorisation included stringent safeguards: PAVA deployment only as a last resort where serious violence is underway or imminent; limitation to 87 specially trained staff across the three institutions; mandatory suitability assessments and comprehensive training including disparity awareness; a 12-month authorisation period with monthly ministerial review; detailed national logging of each use recording protected characteristics; and independent review by the Independent Restraint Review Panel.

Grounds of challenge rejected

The court rejected the irrationality challenge, finding no evidential gap in reasoning. The Secretary of State's purpose was preventing immediate serious harm, not reducing overall violence. The claimant's assertion that the decision assumed PAVA would reduce overall violence fundamentally misrepresented the Secretary of State's reasoning.

The public sector equality duty challenge also failed. The court found the Secretary of State had undertaken reasonable enquiries about impacts on children with protected characteristics, particularly Black, Muslim, and neurodivergent children. Further research was attempted, including correspondence with Professor Payne-James and Dr Maconochie, though limited additional evidence emerged. The Secretary of State proceeded on a "worst case" basis regarding disproportionate impacts, implementing safeguards to address these concerns.

The Tameside duty challenge similarly failed. No reasonable Secretary of State could have concluded the enquiries made were insufficient, particularly given the urgent need to address escalating violence and the comprehensive safeguards implemented.

The court refused permission to admit additional expert evidence from Professor Payne-James and joint evidence from Dr Sadie and Dr Holt, finding it inadmissible without proper expert declarations and not reasonably necessary for resolving the proceedings. The decision demonstrates substantial deference to executive decision-making in complex policy areas involving risk management in custodial settings, whilst requiring rigorous examination of process where potentially serious consequences for vulnerable groups arise.

Copyright & permissions