(NT) Ban the Use of Anti-Spit Guards in Youth Detention

Download the 1-Page Brief Here - (NT) Ban the Use of Anti-Spit Guards in Youth Detention.p

Download P • 164KB

Author: Urszula Nowak & Alex Faehrmann | Publish date: 31/7/2026

Content Warning: Violence (including towards children and First Nations peoples)

• P: In the NT, ‘anti-spit guards’ (spit hoods) are a permitted restraint device in youth detention. 

• S: The NT Minister for Corrections should amend Section 70(1(d)) of the Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT) to ban the use of ‘anti-spit guards’ as a prescribed restraint device.

• E: First Peoples Disability Network (2025): ‘legislate a permanent ban on spit hoods’.

  
  

Problem Identification: 

Section 70(1(d)) of the Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT) (the Act) reintroduced ‘anti-spit guards’ as a prescribed restraint device in youth detention.

According to the Australian National Preventive Mechanism’s (NPM) joint statement, this can ‘cause irreparable harm to children’. The joint statement argued that ‘there is no safe way to use a spit hood on a child.’ The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) also stated that anti-spit guards are ‘inherently dehumanising’ and ‘pose significant risks of injury and even death’. Moreover, the First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN) noted that the ‘fallout [from the use of anti-spit guards] will land almost exclusively on Aboriginal kids’.

Context: 

An anti-spit guard (or spit guard or spit hood)  refers to a mesh hood that is placed over a person’s head to prevent a police officer from being spat on. According to the NT Police Association, anti-spit guards are used ‘to prevent members of the NT Police being exposed to communicable diseases’. The Australian Federal Police (AFP) outlined that communicable diseases include HIV, COVID-19 and Hepatitis B (HBV). The AFP’s review into its use of anti-spit guards stated that it was ‘generally accepted … that the use of spit hoods can be dangerous in certain circumstances’. 

In the NT, anti-spit guards were banned in youth detention in 2017 but were reintroduced in 2025.

Arguments:

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) stated that the reintroduction of anti-spit guards ‘poses a threat to the safety of children in detention.’ Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) reported that ‘spit hoods may contribute to asphyxiation and serious trauma’. Amnesty International argued that anti-spit guards ‘can amount to torture’. The NT Office of the Children’s Commissioner (NTOCC) found that ‘the application of spit hoods … ha[s] resulted in numerous injuries and deaths of people in custody throughout Australia and the world.’ The NTOCC highlighted in 2023 that ‘the purported “reasonable and justified” act of using a spit hood is outweighed by the risks of re-traumatisation, harm, breathing difficulties … and death.’ 

The Human Rights Commissioner of the AHRC, Lorraine Finlay, stated in 2023 that ‘evidence clearly indicates that the key risk a spit hood is designed to prevent – the transmission of communicable diseases – is very low’. Cresswell et al. (2018) stated that there is ‘no risk of transmitting HIV through spitting’. The NT Ombudsman concluded that ‘evidence shows the risk of contracting communicable disease from being spat on are negligible.’ The AFP review noted that there is ‘no record of an AFP appointee contracting HIV, Hepatitis B, or Hepatitis C in respect [to an inmate spitting on them].’ This was echoed by NZ Police’s internal review, which ranked the ‘risk of disease transmission [from spitting] as low.’ 

ALHR noted that the use of anti-spit guards ‘undermines Australia’s international obligations under core United Nations human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)’. The CRC obliged parties to ensure that children do not endure ‘torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ The RANZCP condemned the use of anti-spit guards as ‘a form of torture and [as] cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment which poses a threat to the safety of children in detention.’ 

The ACT Human Rights Commissioner stated that anti-spit guards have ‘been used disproportionately on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.’ The FPDN explained that ‘94% of children in NT detention are Aboriginal – the highest rate in the nation.’

Advice/Solution Identification:

The FPDN and the NPM’s joint statement called for the NT government to legislate a ban on anti-spit guards in youth detention. The NPM stated that such a ban could ensure that children in detention ‘are free from torture and other ill treatment, and are treated with humanity and respect in detention.’

Precedent:

There is a domestic precedent to ban anti-spit guards. Every other state and territory aside from WA does not allow the use of anti-spit guards. In the NT, they were banned in 2017 for young people until their reintroduction in 2025. 

---

Public Support: 

This list reflects publicly stated positions and should not necessarily be taken as endorsement of this specific brief.

1. Amnesty International

2. Australian Childhood Foundation

3. First Peoples Disability Network (FPDN)

4. Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Commission     

5. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) 

6. The Joint Statement from the Australian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM)

7. Guardian for Children and Young People

8. NT Office of the Children’s Commissioner (NTOCC)

9. NT Ombudsman

10. WA Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services 

Broad Support:

1. ACT Human Rights Commission - They have celebrated the end of the use of anti-spit guards in the ACT and in the AFP federal system because they can pose a serious risk of suffocation. However, they have not called for specific legislative change in the NT.

The following groups have signed the joint statement from the Australian National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) which condemned anti-spit guards ‘as being inherently dehumanising’. 

2. ACT Inspector of Custodial Services - They have signed the joint statement from the NPM which condemned anti-spit guards ‘as being inherently dehumanising’. However, they have not made a separate individual statement calling for legislative change.

3. NT Community Visitor Program - They have signed the joint statement from the NPM which condemned anti-spit guards ‘as being inherently dehumanising’. However, they have not made a separate individual statement calling for legislative change.

The following groups also signed the NPM joint statement: Guardian for Children and Young People, NT Office of the Children’s Commissioner, NT Ombudsman and WA Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services 

News Coverage:

• National Indigenous Times - “NT Coroner urges ban on spit hoods in report on death in custody of Aboriginal man”. This article outlined the findings of the coroner’s report on anti-spit guards and argued that they are an ineffective and harmful restraint device. By: Lloyd James | 19 December 2025 - Read the article here.

• The Saturday Paper - “Spit hoods reinstated in NT”. This article covered the process of the reinstatement of anti-spit guards following the implementation of the Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT). By: Editors | 1 August 2025 - Read the article here.

• The Guardian - “Advocates criticise ‘dangerous’ NT plan to reintroduce spit hoods in youth detention centres”. This article explained the main advocacy positions against the reinstatement of anti-spit guards. By: AAP | 30 July 2025 - Read the article here.

• Australian Broadcasting Corporation - “NT to reinstate use of spit hoods in youth detention, eight years after royal commission sparked ban”. The article explained the history of the ban on anti-spit guards and the process of their reinstatement following the Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT). By: Grace Atta | 28 July 2025 - Read the article here.

• SBS News - “NT children's commissioner 'deeply concerned' as spit hoods to be reintroduced”. The article reported on the statement given by the NT Children’s Commissioner as the Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT) was in the process of being implemented. By: AAP | 14 October 2024 - Read the article here.

Where to go to learn more: 

1. (2023) Extraordinary Restraint: Spit Hood & Emergency Restraint Chair Use on Children in Police Custody | NT Ombudsman - This report was an investigation into the use of and laws surrounding the use of spit hoods. This report included a recommendation to ban the use of spit hoods in the NT. View the report here.

2. (2023) Review on the Use of Spit-Hoods by the AFP | Australian Federal Police (Declassified) - This declassified review compiled key evidence on the use and safety of anti-spit guards and concluded that their misuse could lead to injury and death. This review included a recommendation to discontinue the use of anti-spit guards across Australia. View the review here. 

3. (2023) Use of Spit Hoods and Restraint Chairs on Children | NT Office of the Children’s Commissioner - This position statement and report argued that anti-spit guards are 'not safe in any circumstance’. View the report here.

Human Perspective: 

Content Warning: Violence, abuse, mental health and incarceration

Jackson is a 15-year-old boy from a regional NT town who struggled in school and began engaging in low-level offences, including shoplifting and property damage. After a gradual escalation to more serious offences, Jackson’s mother was advised by the NT Department of Children and Families that reporting his offences would enable him to get the care he needed. This advice led to a police referral to court when he was 12, where he was sentenced to a term in youth detention. Due to pre-existing mental health issues, Jackson had a panic attack in his cell with two prison guards present, and he began to yell at the guards. The guards, reportedly concerned about the transmission of diseases through accidental spitting from Jackson, authorised the use of an anti-spit guard. Jackson was physically restrained, stripped of his clothing, strapped to a chair, and an anti-spit guard was applied. He was held for hours in this condition, agitated, in tears and struggling to breathe. Following his release, Jackson now bounces between at-home care and further terms in detention. To this day, Jackson has recurrent nightmares about not being able to breathe associated with the anti-spit guard and has a PTSD diagnosis.

To protect the anonymity of those involved, this is a fictionalised account drawn from an amalgamation of real-life stories, experiences and testimonials gathered during the research process for this brief. Any resemblance to actual individuals is purely coincidental.

Conflict of interest/acknowledgment statement: 

N/A.

Support 

If your organisation would like to add your support to this paper or suggest amendments, please email Info@foreaustralia.com. 

Disclaimers

Please review all FORE disclaimers here.

Reference list: 

Amnesty International Australia. (2022, February 26). Use of spit hoods can amount to torture in youth detention or anywhere else. https://www.amnesty.org.au/use-of-spithoods-can-amount-to-torture-in-youth-detention-or-anywhere-else/

Australian Childhood Foundation. (2025, July). Why spit hoods don't create safety in youth dentention. https://learn.childhood.org.au/blog/spit-hoods-dont-create-safety/

Australian Federal Police. (2023). Review of the use of spit hoods by the AFP. https://www.afp.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-09/LEX%201561%20-%20Documents.pdf 

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2023). The Australian Federal Police's review on its use of spit hoods: Submission by the Australian Human Rights Commission. https://humanrights.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0032/46895/Afp_spit_hood_internal_review_submission_17_february_2023.pdf 

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2023, April 14). Commission welcomes banning of spit hoods by AFP [Media release]. https://humanrights.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/media-releases/media-releases/commission-welcomes-banning-spit-hoods-afp 

Australian National Preventive Mechanism. (2024). Joint statement: Reintroduction of spit hoods for children in the NT is not the answer. https://www.ombudsman.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/305623/Australian-NPM-joint-statement-reintroduction-of-spit-hoods-for-children-in-the-NT.pdf 

Barnert, E. S., Dudovitz, R., Nelson, B. B., Coker, T. R., Biely, C., Li, N., & Chung, P. J. (2017). How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics, 139(2), Article e20162624. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2624 

Bridges, A. (2023, April 20). WA police, prisons to keep using spit hoods banned by Australian Federal Police. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-04-20/wa-to-keep-using-spit-hoods-after-afp-ban/102243588 

Cresswell, F. V., Ellis, J., Hartley, J., Sabin, C. A., Orkin, C., & Churchill, D. R. A systematic review of risk of HIV transmission through biting or spitting: Implications for policy. HIV Med, 19(8), 532–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/hiv.12625

Dick, S. (2022, October 7). NT government ends use of spit hoods on children in police custody, years after youth detention royal commission ban. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-07/nt-bans-spit-hoods-on-children-police-custody/101511140 

Ferguson, G. (2025, July 29). What is a spit hood and why do police and prison guards use them? ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/what-is-a-spit-hood-used-by-police-prison-guards-explained/105584648 

First Peoples Disability Network Australia. (2025, July 30). FPDN condemns NT spit hood reintroduction: A dehumanising policy of torture [Media release]. https://fpdn.org.au/media-release-fpdn-nt-spit-hood-policy/ 

Lathouris, O., & Dick, S. (2024, October 12). Children’s commissioner releases report into NT youth detention, days before government set to lower criminal age. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-12/nt-children-s-commissioner-releases-youth-detention-report/104463144 

Marigold, O., Castillo, E. M., Sloane, C., Brennan, J., Coyne, C. J., Swift, S., & Vilke, G. M. (2020). Further study on the physiological effects of an alternative spit mask. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 72, Article 101945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2020.101945 

Northern Territory Police Association. (2022, February 3). NTPA supports the use of spit hoods [Media release]. https://www.ntpa.com.au/knowledgebase/article/KA-01005/ 

Office of the Children's Commissioner Northern Territory. (2023). Position paper: Use of spit hoods and restraint chairs on children. https://occ.nt.gov.au/_resources/documents/occ-publications/other-reports/OCC-Position-Paper-Use-of-Spit-Hoods-and-Restraint-Chairs-on-Children.pdf

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. (2025, July 30). Psychiatrists warn NT government: Spit hoods and detention cause irreversible harm to youth [Media release]. https://www.ranzcp.org/news-analysis/psychiatrists-warn-nt-government-spit-hoods-detention-cause-irreversible-harm-to-youth

Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. (2025). Chapter 4 - Human rights compliance in the youth justice and detention system. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Incarceration47/Interim_Report/Chapter_4_-_Human_rights_compliance_in_the_youth_justice_and_detention_system 

Shoyer, P. (2024). Ombudsman statement on spit hood use by NT Police. Office of the Ombudsman Northern Territory. https://ombudsman.nt.gov.au/_resources/documents/publications/2024/Ombudsman-statement-on-spit-hood-use-by-NT-Police.pdf 

Youth Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2025 (NT). https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Bills/Youth-Justice-Legislation-Amendment-Bill-2025-S31?format=assented