The decision this week by the court of appeal to quash the cruel and unnecessary rules for physically restraining young people in custody is, as campaigners who fought for it have said, a genuine victory for human rights.
Incidences of deaths involving restraint in secure training centres (STCs) - such as that of Adam Rickwood in 2004 - rightly sparked calls for reform. But while pleas for change are welcome, a judgment like this from the court of appeal is another thing altogether.
Those advocates of the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" school of punishment for young people who have committed violent or serious offences might find this ruling perplexing. They might ask what all the fuss is about. If a member of staff in an STC is physically threatened, they might argue, doesn't that member of staff have a right to protect themselves and the safety of others around them?
The simple answer is, of course they do. But the very important - and too often ignored aspect of managing such young people - is how and in what circumstances "reasonable" restraint is justified and carried out.
When ministers introduced new guidelines on restraint last summer under the auspices of "protecting" children, they were met - rightly - with charges of doing just the opposite. The new rules effectively permitted staff to restrain children for "good order and discipline" - not because someone else was in danger or that the young person was a threat to themselves. It constituted a nebulous, elastic and abusable intervention that increased the opportunities for "justifiable" use of restraint. (The methods authorised by ministers for use on children as young as 12 included the very painful rib and thumb "distractions").
In March, the parliamentary joint committee on human rights called for the automatic abolition of the use of restraint techniques involving deliberate physical pain in privately run child prisons, concluding that British law does not sanction the use of violence against children unless it is absolutely necessary.
This week's court of appeal decision that the new rules were unlawful has reinforced the objections raised to restraint and has been widely welcomed as a clear signal to government that pushing the rules through was a grave error.
In response to the decision, Carolyne Willow, the national co-ordinator of the Children's Rights Alliance for England,(CRAE), said: "These unlawful rules were pushed through last summer, despite strong opposition from parliamentarians, child protection experts and human rights groups. The court of appeal has quite rightly put children's rights ahead of the interests of the private companies running these centres.".
Diana Sutton, the head of policy at the NSPCC, said: "This crucial judgment is a huge step forward and supports our view that restraint should only be used as a last resort and not as a routine disciplinary measure. Evidence we recently received from children held in detention showed that restraint sometimes resulted in them suffering injuries and often left them feeling angry and depressed."
Sutton's response highlighted what can be forgotten in debates about how we treat incarcerated young people in the UK. We have an obligation to protect children. We might think what they have done is abhorrent - as in many cases it is - but when children are harmed by the adults looking after them as a means of maintaining "good order and discipline", what exactly is the signal being sent out? Especially when there are - with adequate training and staffing levels - workable, proven, alternatives to deliberate and painful restraint.
As the joint committee concluded: "Children and young people in detention are in a uniquely vulnerable position. Whilst everyone in detention must be treated with dignity and respect, children in detention have particular needs, distinct from the adult prison population, given their age and stage of development. The use of violence on vulnerable children and young people in detention can rarely be acceptable and risks breaching international human rights standards."
And, as Sutton points out: "Many of these children will have suffered abuse or been caught up in domestic violence before going into custody. They need care not harsh treatment and hopefully this ruling will go some way towards achieving that."
The court of appeal has refused ministers the right to appeal the decision. Bravo.
