By Natalie Byrom  

  The justice system in England and Wales, once lauded as “the envy of the world” is now more often described as being “in crisis”. Since 2010, government funding for both the courts and for legal advice and representation has been significantly reduced, increasing gaps in the provision of legal information, advice and support for people facing issues with community care, immigration, housing and welfare benefits. More parents now attempt to represent themselves in family court proceedings. Measures introduced to combat the spread of COVID-19 have exacerbated backlogs across the civil, criminal and family courts – leaving victims, defendants, claimants and their families waiting longer to access justice. The cost-of-living crisis has intensified issues, increasing the number of people experiencing legal problems with debt, housing and domestic abuse. Existing provision of legal advice and representation is inadequate to meet this need. In 2024 the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was criticised by the National Audit Office for failing to collect the data needed to effectively manage the supplier base for this critical service5. Against this backdrop of escalating unmet legal need and a justice system under strain, justice system leaders are increasingly turning to technology with the dual aim of promoting earlier dispute resolution and achieving efficiency savings. There is growing government interest in remote and digital alternatives to face-to-face legal advice provision, creating both new opportunities and challenges. However, an absence of agreed quality standards for digital tools and inadequate regulation of AI-assisted provision exacerbates risks and undermines innovation. Issues with the leadership, culture and structure of the MoJ undermine attempts to address these issues. Since 2010 there have been 11 changes in Lord Chancellor, equalling the number between 1945 and 2003. The inclusion of responsibility for prisons within the department’s remit when it was created in 2007 has detracted focus and funding from other areas of justice policy – including access to civil justice and the courts. The challenges in delivering the £1.3bn programme of digital court reform, which has been beset by significant delays and multiple reductions in scope6, have exposed  issues with the governance structures created to oversee the operation of HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS). Experts have questioned the adequacy of the existing framework agreement7 and suggested that wider constitutional reforms may be needed to put in place the structures and leadership necessary to effectively manage the courts and tribunals. Issues with the leadership, structure and culture of the MoJ (and other justice system institutions) are reflected in persistent and systemic issues with the data that is available to system leaders. The absence of joined-up data – structured at the level of people, not cases – prevents justice leaders from taking a whole system view, undermining attempts to identify and resolve challenges. The relative absence of data, and persistent issues with arrangements for accessing the information that does exist8, also weaken opportunities for external researchers to undertake robust research. This means that justice, especially civil justice, does not in general benefit from the networks of independent think tanks, researchers and evidence intermediaries that promote effective decision making in other areas of social policy. This report sets out what we know about the ways in which the justice system fails to meet people’s needs, highlighting existing examples of research on current issues in access to justice. Just as crucially, the report focuses on what we do not know, and draws attention to the gaps in data, evidence and infrastructure that undermine our ability to sustainably address existing challenges. 
London: Nuffield Foundation, 2024. 90p.