Niacro

NIACRO’S RESPONSE TO THE NIPS CONSULTATION ON

THE POLICY AND GUIDANCE FOR THE OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF PAVA HAND-HELD PERSONAL INCAPACITANT SPRAY.

DECEMBER 2006

1. Introduction

1.1 NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: working in communities; working with children and young people who offend; working with offenders and ex-prisoners; working with prisoners, their families and children; influencing policy and practice; and applying resources effectively.

1.2 NIACRO has links with, receives funding from, and/or works in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland.

1.3 NIACRO has considerable experience providing Services to people in custody – through our Advice Service, the Gateway Programme - and currently is working in partnership with the NI Prison Service and others in the ReachOut programme which works to progress employability for ex-prisoners.  NIACRO also provides a range of services for families and the children of prisoners through our Visitors Centres, Family Links and associated services.

1.4 NIACRO is pleased to contribute to comments as requested by the NI Prison Service in respect of the consultation document “Policy and Guidance for the operational deployment of PAVA hand-held personal incapacitant spray”.

2. Introducing PAVA to NI prisons.

2.1  NIACRO acknowledges the need to have in place a range of approaches to the safe management of people in custody but there must be concerns about the use of any chemicals on a person in order to incapacitate him. Even though this policy proposes a range of “safeguards”, we would suggest that none can eliminate the possibility of serious injury or death.

2.2  It is proposed  to use PAVA in situations “against those subjects offering a level of violence which cannot appropriately be dealt with by lower levels of force”, and its testing against the criteria  applied generally to the “use of force” to judge if it was necessary, reasonable and proportionate.

What, if any, evidence is available to illustrate that current techniques – from verbal mediation to physical control and restraint techniques - are insufficient or inadequate?

2.3  NIACRO would argue that the resources identified for the introduction of incapacitant spray should instead be directed towards the training and supervision of prison staff in working with offenders, mediation, and handling aggression.

3. Legislation.

3.1   The examination of the Legislation is based on the unsupported premise that PAVA is required. It appears to identify the areas within which a balance may be struck between the individual’s Human Rights and the use of force in Common Law, and the requirement on the NI Prison Service to apply PAVA correctly, in accordance with procedures,  to maintain this balance.

4. Procedures for Deployment.

4.1   Whilst a Risk Assessment is proposed, it is likely that there will be some situations where such an assessment must be carried out quickly during an episode of crisis and disruption. This should be addressed within the policy document.

4.2   It is acknowledged that in some situations the prisoner may not understand English and that every effort should be made to communicate effectively with him. The difficulties in communication may themselves have contributed to the situation arising in the first instance.

4.3   The PAVA spray will not be used on Juveniles or on Women prisoners, or male prisoners in specified circumstances.  Whilst the decision is welcomed, it would be helpful to have the supporting arguments referenced in the policy. Clearly the use of the spray with ‘vulnerable’ prisoners and those with ‘mental health’ problems is of particular concern to NIACRO. In essence, the reasons why PAVA would not be applied to specific groups could also be applied to the adult male population generally.

4.4   It is proposed that there will be ‘automatic’ involvement of the Prisoner Ombudsman in the use of PAVA spray during the planned 12 month trial period. It is our view that the application of chemicals in such circumstances should be regarded as serious similar to the use of a firearm, and subjected to a high level of scrutiny on every / any situation which may arise.

Failure to do so risks the ‘normalising’ effect with operational procedures becoming routine and an increasing number of NIPS staff being given access to the use of the spray.  There is a real risk then that even those safeguards which are currently being proposed will be diluted.

5. Aftercare.

5.1 Whilst arrangements for the aftercare of subjects who have been sprayed appear to be comprehensive, they do highlight the range of symptoms and after-effects associated with PAVA and the extent to which they can easily be aggravated. The possibility of adverse reaction is highlighted but in our view the statement in section 5.11 offers insufficient protection for the individual:

 “...if staff are aware that the symptoms are persisting, they should seek medical assistance”…. and to some extent reinforces our concerns around  the use of PAVA at all.

______________________________________