Our responses to PLE as a tool for access to justice

Law for Life welcomed the 2019 inquiry into the HMCTS court reform programme. Law for Life has been able to meet regularly with HMCTS teams as a member of the Litigant in Person Engagement Group (LIPEG) and to attend a number of public engagement events. This has led to fruitful dialogue on specific elements of reform, including user accessibility. However, we shared the concerns raised by the Public Accounts Committee that the pace and scale of change, alongside the pressure to deliver cost savings risked undermining the objective of improving the court system for the benefit of all citizens, and as a corollary, risked undermining access to justice and the rule of law.

Law for Life’s response from September 2018 to the Ministry of Justice's Post-Implementation Review of Part II of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO). The response makes several recommendations, including:

• recognising and investing in public legal education and information as a vital tool in early intervention and preventing problems from escalating later on;
• recognising the importance of public legal education and information in triage and appropriate referrals to legal services;
• reforming commissioning structures to provide for early advice models that specifically welcome legal information and education delivery strategies;
• developing an 'innovation grants' approach to identify and co-design high-quality solutions involving digital delivery;
• actively developing a stream of work to encourage those with protected characteristics to recognise that they may have a legal issue and to tailor services to their needs;
• supporting the role of 'trusted intermediaries' with an effective strategy for PLE front-line workers; and;
• incentivising the provision of transparent, low-cost, or unbundled legal assistance for those unable to access a full-service traditional model of legal advice, which must be properly integrated with information and education support both online and offline.

Law for Life's CEO Lisa Wintersteiger gave evidence to Lord Bach's Commission on Access to Justice, which is supported by Jeremy Corbyn, Lord Falconer and Karl Turner. On 22nd June 2017, the commission was given evidence-based proposals for restoring access to legal information, advice and representation. Members of the commission included Hillsborough lawyer Raju Bhatt, Director of the Law Centres Network Julie Bishop, former president of the Law Society Lucy Scott-Moncrief CBE, and former Lord Justice of Appeal, Sir Henry Brooke CMG.

Lisa set out why public legal education is essential to access to justice and the rule of law, and solutions must be provided to the underlying lack of knowledge about legal rights. Legal education should be available wherever and whenever it is needed, and digital solutions should be used to target those most in need.

Law for Life's response to Civil Courts Structure Review interim report highlighted that the development of the online court (OC) should prioritise the involvement of litigants without lawyers and organisations that work closely with them. The court should be designed with a realistic view of how litigants interact with the system and not based on an ‘ideal litigant’. Many factors, such as access to the internet, age, education, and language, impact the ability of individuals to effectively use the online court and should be taken into consideration during the development process. There is a significant deficit in the public's understanding of the law, which creates a need for high-quality accessible information and assistance for litigants in person (LiP). The information needs of litigants include help with filling in forms, understanding legal language and concepts, and developing skills for dealing with the court process.

Key recommendations in Law for Life’s response included:

• LiPs and organisations working with them should be at the center of the design process and involved in testing and piloting.
• The OC should be designed based on a behaviorally realistic view of how LiPs interact with the court system, not an ideal litigant.
• Assistance should be provided to those challenged in using computers, including offline assistance and 'assisted digital' support.
• Consideration should be given to factors such as access to the internet, personal characteristics (e.g. age, education, language barriers, impairments), and low legal knowledge and capability.
• Stakeholders representing vulnerable court users should be involved in the development of assisted forms of help.
• Litigants in person require support in identifying the legal basis, expectations, relevant time limits, process and costs involved, and in completing forms.
• High-quality accessible information and assistance is necessary for LiPs to effectively use the OC.
• LiPs need help with: identifying and filling in relevant forms, understanding legal concepts and language, adopting necessary attitudes, and developing skills.
• Effective information should help LiPs understand the role of the court, follow process, understand legal language, apply the law, and fill in the correct forms.