Corporate report

Independent Restraint Review Panel (IRRP) - summary report to end 2024

Published 16 October 2025

Applies to England and Wales

1. Overview

During the calendar year 2024, the Independent Restraint Review Panel made 11 establishment visits, reviewing 97 incidents involving the use of Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) restraint techniques within the children’s secure estate.

These incidents were selected by IRRP and included all incidents where the use of Pain Inducing Techniques (PIT) had been recorded, plus others.

The incidents reviewed, were selected from those which had been recorded in the period since IRRP had visited previously – a window of up to about 6 months before each IRRP.

As such, in terms of timing, there is not comparability with figures provided by official statistics. IRRP’s figures are drawn from our findings and are not subject to the statistical standards associated with official statistics.

Across these incidents, pain inducing techniques (PIT) were recorded as having been used 43 times, across 25 of the 97 incidents we reviewed.

Where PIT was recorded either used or attempted more than once during an incident, this reflected where the PIT was not applied such that pain was felt by the child, where the risk being tackled was not reduced and PIT had to be applied a second time or where, during a protracted incident, there was a later point during the restraint where PIT was applied due to the risks assessed by staff at that later point.

These also included one instance where the use of PIT had not been recorded by the establishment, but where the use was identified by IRRP.

We also observed several incidents where staff were clearly in very considerable pain or at risk of serious injury, but where PIT was not used but where, had it been, it may have been justifiable.

The MMPR manual states: “The application of a pain-inducing technique should never be used where a non-painful alternative can safely achieve the same objective.

“However, the use of a pain inducing technique may be justifiable if that is the only viable and practical way of dealing with a violent incident which poses an immediate risk of serious harm to the young person, other young persons or staff.”  

To inform our considerations when reviewing incidents, we also drew on Charlie Taylor’s Independent Review of the use of pain inducing techniques in the youth secure estate, published 2020, which provided examples of when he considered use of PIT might be appropriate and when not.

Our assessments concluded that 20 of these uses of PIT fully met the criteria set before PIT could be considered because there was an immediate risk of serious injury.

In a further 4 cases, the available footage and paperwork was such that we could not definitively conclude whether the criteria were fully met.

Against a strict interpretation of the policy criteria set before PIT might be considered an option (as set out above above), the remaining 19 uses were concluded by IRRP as not clearly and fully meeting the criteria.

Some involved PIT use to secure compliance during a restraint, normally when that restraint had been protracted or particularly challenging, or where staff were unable to progress the restraint to conclusion.

Some reflected judgments made by staff during a restraint which when looked at with hindsight, and the benefit of more context and information, were judged differently.

Our conclusions were based on whether all alternatives had been considered or where the immediacy of a risk of serious injury was not clear to us. We judged each incident with the information available to us and the advantage of the scope and time to consider alternatives to PIT – some way from the often frenzied situation faced by staff when intervening to protect themselves or others.

In many instances, staff had to make quick assessments of the risks and where they reasonably believed those risks to be so serious that PIT was their only option.

Not surprisingly, there was sometimes debate around these judgments. Notwithstanding this important qualification, at 44% of the total being open to a level of question, we believe this proportion can be reduced.

2. The panel and approach

The Independent Restraint Review Panel during 2024 consisted of:

• Independent Chair
• Senior Independent Medical Adviser
• Local Authority Children’s Services representative
• Minimising and Managing Physical Restraint (MMPR) expert
• Safeguarding adviser

As chair, it was reassuring to have local authority attendance at virtually every IRRP during 2024, ensuring that those with responsibility for children in the community were part of IRRP’s work.  

Our approach has continued broadly as explained in my report covering the period to the end of 2023:

• time spent talking confidentially with children about their experiences
• review of a number of incidents during which a serious injury or warning sign (SIWS) was noted (for example if a child stated that they could not breathe or there was an injury)
• a full panel during which a number of cases (chosen by IRRP) were reviewed with establishment staff.

All recorded PIT usage was reviewed (there was one case during 2024 where to respect decency of the child, we did not view the camera footage, relying instead on what was good quality recorded information).

SIWS cases for review were selected by our senior independent medical adviser.

We sought feedback on our approach throughout the year. This was broadly supportive, particularly of the learning environment that we sought to sustain.

Those whose ‘day job’ might be considered to put them in a position of conflicted interest, provided consistent professional input.

We saw local quality assurance reviews which challenged the appropriateness of decisions to use PIT and establishment staff attending IRRPs were sometimes just as challenging as IRRP members when reviewing incidents and when assessing whether the criteria for use had been fully met.

Establishment focus on learning and on looking to reduce the use of PIT was consistently encouraging.

Inevitably, there was not always agreement when IRRP concluded that there may have been alternatives available to staff than the use of PIT and that PIT did not fully meet the criteria for use.

From the Youth Custody Service (YCS) nationally, we received timely responses and follow up to our findings.

3. What the children told us

At each site we met with children, assuring them of confidentiality on each occasion.

Their views helped inform discussion in the full IRRP, pointing management towards potential improvement. From these discussions we were sometimes able to identify issues which were causing tensions and potentially generating behaviour management challenges.

Children told us that they didn’t like being restrained but accepted that there were times when restraint was necessary to prevent injury.

Children told us that force was used when there was a need to safeguard against injury, for example to break up a fight. Where relationships with staff were positive and where staff were seen to care for the children as individuals, they told us that force when used, was appropriate and reasonable. Where relationships were less positive, we didn’t hear this to the same degree.

As the year progressed, we increasingly heard children talk about experiencing de-escalation during restraint.

De-briefing with the children after restraint was more evident than we had heard previously although many children chose not to participate, and most had limited understanding of what the de-briefing was for.

We still saw reports which suggested that some de-briefing was mechanistic, rather than child focussed. We also saw some excellent de-briefs and saw, and heard evidence from individual children, that feedback and learning had been applied constructively.

While we didn’t actively search this out, we heard less concerns raised about race being perceived as a factor for the children, instead, many talked about the quality of relationships with staff being key to whether they might be restrained and to how a restraint was likely to proceed.

Where race was raised as a concern, we fed this back. While this was not something which was front and centre to our discussions with the children, we stand ready to support work to better understand and tackle this.

The children told us that over the year, full searches were used very much less than previously. This followed intervention by the YCS which introduced stricter reporting requirements on full searches. Previously, it had been an issue which generated concern for the children.

Although they knew how to complain, a number of the children expressed limited confidence in local complaint systems. Barnados was valued.

Children were wary of some individual staff but told us that they felt safe among the overwhelming majority. Some children told us that they would be reticent about complaining about individual staff.

As previously, sometimes individual staff were praised for the care they provided and for their handling of difficult situations. During our reviews and establishment visits, we saw many instances of staff providing exceptional care, including during restraint. Very often we saw staff putting themselves at risk to protect children.

Children had little recollection of having been told what to expect from MMPR during induction, although most told us this was not their priority during their first few days in custody.

Mid-year, we raised with the YCS that speculation was circulating among the children about the possible future availability of Pava. This had come from several sources.

We raised concern with the YCS about the challenges presented for and by holding children beyond 18 within the estate and about the apparent slowness of moving them into the adult estate when they were ready. This surfaced through discussion with the children but also from reviews of individual restraints.

On several occasions, it was clear that an individual who would previously have been moved to the over 18 custodial estate, was presenting particular challenges for the children’s establishment – staff, children and/or regime. At that time, due to population pressures in the over 18 estate, the criteria for allocation to the children’s estate had been extended to include more young people who were over 18.

Finally, again from discussions with children but also from incident reviews, we surfaced concerns about the challenges presented for and by the small numbers of girls within what were otherwise male establishments or where maintaining an appropriate staff mix to match the girl’s needs, sometimes proved difficult.

HMYOI Wetherby and Oakhill Secure Training Centre were holding girls and boys.

From what we observed, the extreme behaviours (self-harm and violence in particular) of a very small number of girls presented significant challenges. These girls featured disproportionately amongst use of force incidents in both establishments.

We have offered to share our independent experience as YCS develops its future model for girls.

We saw pain inducing techniques utilised in response to self-harm, often repeated self-harm and we suggested that more work was needed to support staff in determining the most appropriate response in such circumstances.

Where PIT had been used, we were satisfied that the intentions were good, but we believed there had been occasions where it may have been possible to mitigate or de-escalate behaviours without the use of PIT.

4. Review findings

I noted in my last report that in the early days of IRRP we had observed unease amongst some staff when engaging with the children and uncertainty about when it was appropriate to challenge behaviours and when force could/should be considered.

I noted also that following Covid, there were many who had not experienced mixing and movement other than in small numbers. Other than in the short-term, where there had been a large influx of newly recruited staff, this was not such a feature during 2024.

Of positive note, we generally saw more engagement with children, earlier intervention to support positive behaviour so avoiding incidents which might trigger the deployment of force and more focus on positive role modelling. 

We increasingly found that body worn cameras had been activated by staff at the start of incidents.

We saw improved quality of reporting but too often found these to report what happened rather than also explaining the rationale for why MMPR was initiated at the outset.  

Generally, we saw more focus on de-escalation once MMPR was deployed, although when behaviours were extreme, we sometimes saw staff becoming task and control focussed, at the expense of focus on and communication with the child.

Commonly, with the benefit of review after the incidents, we observed missed opportunities to test compliance and potentially to lessen holds, but there was much more focus on de-escalation than previously.

We saw reduced use of high-end restraint techniques. Once back at the door of the child’s room, generally staff tested whether the child was able to be relocated standing or even to walk into their room, although there were occasions where this opportunity was not tested.

Throughout 2024, incident management was a regular point on which we commented. In many instances, there remained scope to strengthen the clarity of who was the incident manager and also, who was focussed on talking to the child.

From the reviews of incidents where there had been a serious injury warning sign (for example, a child stating that they could not breathe), overwhelmingly, staff responded immediately and appropriately to the potential risk. SIWS were consistently recorded when they occurred.

We drew attention to the challenges created by alterations to rooms with the fitment of showers. In some places these have restricted the available space, make prone location very difficult and, when medical monitoring is necessary, can make this challenging. Clearly there are considerable safeguarding and decency benefits associated with integral showers.

We saw and commented positively on high levels of tolerance by staff and on the risks they took to protect children.

There were several instances where use of a pain inducing technique could have prevented the risk of serious harm to staff, but where PIT was not used or was delayed. Where it was used, generally it was for a very short period, and it proved effective in stopping the immediate risks being tackled.

Verbal warnings to the child before the deployment of PIT, were not always given or were sometimes given such that the child may not have understood fully what was about to happen.

On a number of occasions, it was clear that children understood that PIT was to be used but, despite warnings, showed no intention to follow the instructions they were given to reduce the risk of serious injury.

To the extent that it was possible to discern from the available footage, we did not see use of pain inducing techniques which were gratuitous or excessive.

We saw and reported on the use of PIT for compliance, rather than to prevent serious harm.

As the year progressed (and since), we saw local quality assurance reviews of MMPR become increasingly focused on the guidelines for the use of PIT, reflecting growing attention to minimising use of force and PIT. This likely also reflects the rigour that establishments expect from us when IRRP next visits and the expectations of the YCS central management oversight.

Colin Allars
Chair Independent Restraint Review Panel