“There are at present some 3,000 children in YOIs. Somewhere in the region of 1,000 are aged either 15 or 16. The rest are aged 17. They are, on any view, vulnerable and needy children. Disproportionately they come from chaotic backgrounds. Many have suffered abuse or neglect. The view of the Howard League is that they need help, protection and support if future offending is to be prevented.”
R (on the application of the Howard League for Penal Reform) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWHC 2497 (Admin), paragraph 10
“As Mr. Cornmell states in paragraph 17 of his witness statement:
“These recent trends mean that the youth custodial population in England is now smaller and more homogenous (by reference to age range and type of offending), consisting mainly of older children and young people who are disproportionately likely to have committed violent offences. This has produced a cohort with particularly complex needs. Many have experienced trauma, abuse, or exploitation, and have led chaotic lives, marked by adverse childhood experiences. Managing this population presents new and demanding challenges for the system, especially in terms of risk management, safeguarding, and keeping staff and children safe.”
R (on the application of the Howard League for Penal Reform) v the Secretary of State for Justice [2026] EWHC 74 (Admin), paragraph 8
These two passages are from decisions of the High Court of England and Wales over 20 years apart. Both cases were brought by the Howard League for Penal Reform, acting as the client on behalf of children in prison.
The first became known as the Howard League Children Act case and the judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Munby (as he then was) – and who sadly passed away on 1 January 2026 – set in train a raft of policies and procedures designed to promote and safeguard the welfare of children in prison. The enormous impact of the case on protecting vulnerable children in custody was set out in evidence by the Howard League to Parliament in 2013.
The second case was a challenge to the decision of the Secretary of State on 24 April 2025 to authorise the use of pelargonic acid vanillylamide spray (“PAVA”) in three prison institutions in England for a 12-month period.
The charity argued that the process by which the decision was made was legally flawed. You can read more about the arguments and the two-day hearing in the High Court in a blog by the Howard League.
In a 56 page decision the Court dismissed all the arguments and found that the way in which the decision was made was not unlawful.
At the core of both these judgments is the simple and uncontested fact that children in prison are incredibly vulnerable. This is perhaps more so now than ever before.
Yet, over the last two decades, while the number of children in prison has reduced dramatically, the state has failed to create environments that are safe enough for the small number of children that need to be detained. It is now almost ten years since the Government committed to closing all prisons (Young Offenders’ Institutions) and Secure Children’s Centres. Instead of focusing energy on closing children’s prisons, as was agreed as the appropriate way forward, it authorised the use of PAVA to prevent severe injury to other children and staff in prisons (but not other forms of custody). This is despite the lack of evidence as to the harm PAVA might cause to children in the longer term and the acceptance that it is unlikely to reduce the prevalence of violence.
The Justice Committee is looking at children in custody again: surely now is the time to make good on the promises to close children’s prisons? The End Child Imprisonment campaign’s review of the evidence in 2024 made a strong case for this, and using secure children’s homes where detention is necessary on the grounds of safety.