header-logo header-logo

05 June 2018
Issue: 7796 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Helping the digitally excluded

Legal rights group JUSTICE has set out ‘practical and achievable’ recommendations to help those left behind as the justice system embraces digital technology.

Those who are unfamiliar with technology, or lack the skills or resources required to access it, could be ‘digitally excluded’ from the justice system, according to the JUSTICE report Preventing digital exclusion from online justice, published this week. High-risk groups include detainees and the homeless. Others may face difficulties because they live in areas with low broadband speeds, making it difficult to download forms, or are simply uninterested in going online. Some older people do not have helpers who they can trust.

A JUSTICE working party has been looking at the issue of the digitally excluded since last autumn, following Lord Justice Briggs’ Civil Courts Structure Review, which estimated that 70% of the UK population may need support to engage in proceedings online.

Currently, the Ministry of Justice is forging ahead with plans to introduce an online court for low-value civil claims and intends to automate and digitise all civil money claims by 2020, with an interactive triage system for litigants in person. Tribunals and criminal proceedings will also make greater use of online procedures and virtual hearings.

JUSTICE make 19 recommendations, mainly directed at HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), which already runs a project to provide support through telephone, web chat or face-to-face advice, Assisted Digital.

It calls on HMCTS to conduct more research into how people access online services, and to invest further in digital skills training and support in venues such as community organisations and libraries. Other recommendations include ensuring online justice services can be accessed on mobile technology and designing services with accessibility and simplicity in mind.

Amanda Finlay CBE, chair of the working party, said: ‘Preventing digital exclusion from online justice will require a continuing programme of learning from users' needs and experience to improve assisted digital support and the online court itself.

‘Inclusive, user friendly design and creative thinking will make online justice better for all users. Our recommendations are deliberately practical and achievable and we hope they will be implemented.’

Writing in this week’s NLJ, Roger Smith, NLJ columnist & former director of JUSTICE, notes ‘there are signs that the senior judiciary, having initially backed the modernisation programme, are beginning to be a bit more sceptical’.

Issue: 7796 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll