Legal Information Management, 19 (2019), pp. 63–65
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians doi:10.1017/S1472669619000148

Janus-Faced Justice? The Role of Legal
Technology in the Provision of Access

to Justice

Winner of the Best in category, Justis
International Writing Competition 2019 for the
category Access to Justice and Technology (in
partnership with The City Law School), by
Eleanor De of City, University of London.

The move towards digitisation is a growing global trend

and an inescapable reality. But so too is the increasing

chasm between rights in law and rights enforced. The

advent of legal technology presents exciting opportunities

to bridge this gap, but it would be imprudent to assume

that this is a symbiotic relationship, or that digitisation

necessarily improves access to justice.
New technologies could be used to improve transpar-

ency, disseminate legal information, provide access to

court decisions and reduce court backlog1 and in some

places this potential has been realised. In the

Netherlands, for instance, an online dispute resolution

service (Rechtwijzer) has been developed to help users
identify whether their problem involves legal issues, guide

them through their rights and explain how to enforce

them. This informs the user, empowers them and pro-

vides actionable solutions to their problems, whilst also

decreasing the burden on the courts and providing ease

of access.

However, preoccupation with cost-cutting and effi-

ciency is an enormous barrier to improving access to

justice through legal technology. This manifests in several

ways.

1. In situations where legal technology
might be the best way to increase
access and participation, it might not
be the most cost-effective option

The Consultative Council of European Judges noted in an

opinion on justice and information technologies that cost

may be both an advantage and a disadvantage2. Costs are
highly context-specific and it is a misconception that

digitisation is necessarily cheaper. This sits at odds with

the idea that technology, austerity and access to justice

can happily co-exist, and may provide some explanation

for the pattern of digitisation that has thus far emerged.

By way of example, the highly lauded Civil Resolution

Tribunal in British Columbia, Canada, was borne out of a

report that argued that ‘court processes…often do not
make sense or work for litigants’3. The driving force behind
the Canadian reform, therefore, was concern for public

access and although financial motivations were part of

this, they played a subsidiary role.

By contrast, Smith and Paterson note that ‘the English
and Welsh government…is driven much more overtly by a
need for savings’4. This may explain why the UK has been
slower to adapt to changes in technology and why the

bulk of work to date has been on the growth of a paper-

less system. Other forms of innovation such as digitised

public legal education or using technology to synchronise

information sharing between services such as Her

Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), proba-
tion and the NHS would require more investment and

have, thus far, taken a back seat.

2. This can lead to a dichotomous
approach

Earlier this year, HMCTS launched a proposal for a

number of court closures, justified on the basis that there

is a need to invest in ‘wholly new, more convenient,
fleeter routes to justice’5. This represents a risky binary
approach, whereby governments assume that digitisation

removes the requirement or demand for traditional face-

to-face justice. In light of digital exclusion rates, it is

imperative that digital services and traditional mediums

are not seen as mutually exclusive.

63



3. The focus on costs results in a lack of
consultation with service users which
leads to provisions which are not
shaped or informed by lived experience
and user needs

A common difficulty in the process of digitisation is a lack

of consultation between state and citizen. Moreover, con-

sultation is often retrospective (conducted after policy

drafting), and fails engage in the kind of iterative process

necessary of such a dialogue.

This leads to practical problems. For instance, there

are few opportunities to correct the misconception that

the only people who are digitally excluded are those

‘Internet-deprived citizens [who are not] able or willing to use
technology when it is first deployed’6. The most vulnerable
people experience a multiplicity of issues including - but

not limited to - homelessness, poverty, illiteracy and ill

mental health. And it is these people who experience the

most legal problems and do less about them. Insensitivity

to the nuance of digital exclusion then manifests itself in

the execution of digital services. For example, more

robust consultation with interest groups might have pre-

vented HMCTS from introducing an ‘opt-in’ system for
the Assisted Digital programme (an inappropriate

arrangement because many people are unable to make

informed decisions about whether the online system is

right for them)7.

This is also evident in situations where digital services

are implemented without the necessary individualised or

emotional support. An Australian study reported that

there is often an unhelpful focus on the mechanical dis-

semination of information, regardless of how useful it

might be8. Similarly, a UK government-produced info-

graphic video on domestic violence was deemed patronis-

ing and unhelpful by its intended audience9. In the

criminal context, the use of live video link has been con-

tentious, and using it to provide an interpreter for vul-

nerable people who require an appropriate adult has

been heavily criticised for failing to address user needs10.

4. The risk of a breakdown of trust
between citizen and state

People come into contact with legal services at times

which are likely to be the most stressful in their lives. It

is imperative, therefore, as Tickle notes, that govern-

ments remain aware of the possibility of losing the critical

quality of human judgment and the ways in which digital

pathways can be anonymising and alienating11. After all,

the legitimacy of the legal system hinges on the public’s
trust and confidence in the system. In a civil setting, this

may lead to further disengagement and in a criminal

context, the misuse of technology could impact on recid-

ivism rates; if there is perceived to be a dearth of proced-

ural justice, trust may be eroded which can affect

offenders’ cooperation with criminal justice institutions in
the future.

As long as cost-cutting remains the primary motivator

for adopting new legal technologies it is impossible to

guarantee improved access to justice. To enact meaningful

change, it is essential that user needs are consulted

throughout development and implementation, and that

the increased drive towards digitisation does not diminish

the procedural safeguards necessary for a fair hearing.

Footnotes
1
Julinda Beqiraj and Lawrence McNamara “International Access to Justice: Barriers and Solutions”, Bingham Centre for the Rule of
Law, October 2014. https://www.biicl.org/documents/365_2014_ibatokyo_beqirajmcnamara_internationalaccesstojusticebar-
riersandsolutions.pdf?showdocument=1 (accessed 28th November 2018).

2
Dory Reiling, “Technology In Courts In Europe: Opinions, Practices And Innovations”, International Journal For Court
Administration, June 2012 https://www.iacajournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijca.75/galley/57/download/ (accessed 28th November
2018).

3
Action Committee on Access to Justice in Civil and Family Matters, “Access to Civil and Family Justice: A Roadmap for

Change”, October 2013. http://www.cfcj-fcjc.org/sites/default/files/docs/2013/AC_Report_English_Final.pdf (accessed 28th

November 2018).
4
Roger Smith and Alan Paterson, “Face to Face Legal Services and their Alternatives : Global Lessons from the Digital

Revolution”, University of Strathclyde Prints, 2014 ,pg 7. https://www.publictechnology.net/articles/news/hmcts-consults-court-clo-
sures-digitisation-programme-rolls (accessed 28th November 2018).

5
Ministry of Justice and HMCTS, “Fit for the future: transforming the Court and Tribunal Estate”, 18th January 2018, https://

consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-court-tribunal-estate/supporting_documents/hmctsstrategyapproach-

consultation.pdf (accessed 30th November 2018).
6
B R Hough, “Let’s not make it worse: issues to consider in adopting new technology”, Harvard Journal on Law and Technology,
Vol 26 No 1, Fall 2012, p266.

7
Paul Anders, “Transforming Justice”, Revolving Doors Agency, 10th February 2017 http://www.revolving-doors.org.uk/blog/trans-
forming-justice (accessed 28th November 2018).

64

Eleanor De of City



8
R Hunter, C Banks and J Giddings, ‘Technology is the answer … what was the question: Services to Regional, Rural and

Remote Clients’, p146, in P Pleasence, A Buck, N Balmer, “Transforming Lives: law and social process”, Legal Services
Commission, 2007.

9
Roger Smith and Alan Paterson, “Face to Face Legal Services and their Alternatives : Global Lessons from the Digital

Revolution”, 2014.
10
National Appropriate Adult Network, “Consultation Response DRAFT - Revised PACE Code C (Detention) 2016

Interpreters”, NAAN Policy, 2016 http://appropriateadult.org.uk/images/pdf/2016_CodeC_interpreter_response.pdf (accessed
30th November 2018).

11
Louise Tickle, “Online justice: why courts should explore emerging digital possibilities”, The Guardian, 16th January 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2017/jan/16/online-justice-courts-explore-digital-possibilities (accessed

29th November 2018).

Legal Information Management, 19 (2019), pp. 65–67
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by British and Irish Association of Law Librarians doi:10.1017/S147266961900015X

Blurred Lines: Social Media in Armed
Conflict

Winner of the Best in category, Justis
International Writing Competition 2019 for the
category Social Media, Technology and the Law
(in partnership with the Richmond Journal of Law
& Technology), by Iphigenia Fisentzou of BPP.

Technological advancements have revolutionised the

social interactions of global society and in turn influenced

the means and methods of warfare; increasing the

involvement of civilians in hostilities, not only as victims

but also as participants.1 Together with the involvement

of multiple state and non-state actors, civilian participa-

tion makes these modern conflicts all the more unpre-

dictable, challenging inter alia the traditional notion of
direct participation in hostilities established under inter-

national law.

SOCIAL MEDIA: A MODERN
WEAPON

The first ‘internet war’ in Kosovo witnessed the utilisa-
tion of the internet for the advancement of military

operations.2 Non-state actors, specifically terrorist

organisations, were the first to harness social media net-

works for the recruitment of followers, the dissemination

of information and the gathering of intelligence.3 State

and inter-state actors have also gradually embraced social

media as platforms suited for military operations,4 effect-

ively weaponising them through their adaptation and util-

isation to ‘achieve “military” effects’.5

Social networking platforms (Facebook) and micro-

blogging websites (Twitter) are examples of ‘social media’
enabling social interaction through the creation, collec-

tion, sharing and delivery of user-generated content such

as photographs and written posts.6 Information from

social media sites has been used for cyber operations,7 as

well as for the singling out and targeting of individuals

believed to be linked with the opposing parties to a con-

flict.8 “Open source intelligence” has proven instrumental
for parties with no boots on the ground of the conflict,9

65

Blurred Lines