Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 14 items for

  • Author or Editor: Naomi Creutzfeldt x
Clear All Modify Search

In Chapter 6, Exploring the Role of Procedural Justice in Tribunals and Ombuds, we draw on data and findings produced by our online experimental study. We consider the idea that experiencing procedural justice during tribunals and ombuds hearings is important not only in shaping legitimacy but also in influencing perceptions of outcome fairness, satisfaction and willingness to engage with the system in the future. We also assess whether the findings are different for online and offline proceedings.

Restricted access

In Chapter 1, Legal Needs and Access to Justice, we develop the argument for a holistic vision of access to justice. We expand Wrbka’s definition of ‘the concept of access to justice that embodies the ideal that everybody, regardless of his or her capabilities, should have the chance to enjoy the protection and enforcement of his or her rights by the use of law and the legal system’ and argue that we need a broader definition. To date, access to justice is refined to a narrow ‘legal justice’ focus, involving access to legal assistance in the form of legal advice and access to resolution in the form of legal institutions. A more generous vision for access to justice is needed to include initial advice and help from non-legal support, social and community actors (for example, friends, family, advice sector, local council, specialist organizations (NGOs), schools, the internet) to be part of the delivery of access to justice. As part of this vision, we discuss the legal needs literature and propose a more generous approach to access to justice, reaching beyond legal confines. After that, we distinguish access to offline justice from access to online justice. Then, we set out theoretical frameworks through which to understand (and measure) access to justice in our dataset; namely, legal consciousness and procedural justice.

Restricted access

Through the lens of procedural justice theory, Chapter 2, Trust in Administrative Justice, captures people’s experiences of, and sensibilities towards, moving parts of the AJS online. Prior research has found that procedural justice and the trust and legitimacy it engenders helps to strengthen people’s willingness to cooperate with the police, courts and other justice institutions, and to comply with their directives and the law in general. Yet, little is known about whether and how this process ‘works’ in an administrative justice context within which interactions are increasingly occurring primarily, or solely, online. This chapter will also explore the role of emotions in the encounters with the AJS, marked by strong asymmetric dependence and power. This chapter provides the theoretical foundation for the analysis and experimental vignettes in Chapter 6.

Restricted access

Chapter 8, Marginalized Groups and Unmet Legal Needs, explores how the pandemic has affected access to advice and redress for marginalized groups. Already marginalized communities are likely to be affected the most by the pandemic. Yet, we know relatively little about how members of these groups are accessing the justice system and what can be done during and after the pandemic to improve their capacity to obtain advice, support and redress. The digital age has brought both opportunities and challenges to the access to justice landscape. While advancements in technology have made justice more accessible to some, they have also created barriers for others, especially those who are digitally and legally excluded. Our empirical data show that there is a need for inclusive justice that addresses the unmet legal needs of marginalized groups, provides support and guidance for legal needs and promotes knowledge and awareness of tribunals and ombuds. Additionally, procedural justice plays a crucial role in establishing legitimacy in the digital age, and communication that considers both the form and content can have a significant impact on the emotional experiences of service users. It is essential to consider the unique vulnerabilities and capabilities of different groups and aim towards creating a justice system that serves everyone, including the digitally and legally abandoned.

Restricted access

This is a book about institutions in the administrative justice system (AJS), their users and pathways to justice. The AJS is made up of institutions that help individuals when the government acts in ways that are unfair or unjust. The institutions that form the AJS are complaint schemes, ombuds, tribunals and the Administrative Court. They influence our lives in areas of housing, health care, education, social security and taxation, for example. This book is based on a Nuffield-funded research project and is about people who administer institutions of the AJS, about people who use institutions of the AJS, and about those who do not access institutions of the AJS. We explore these different positions in the AJS through two distinct pathways to seek redress: housing and special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Restricted access

Chapter 9, Conclusion: Digital Journeys, brings together the empirical findings of the project and critically assesses what we have learned from doing research with marginalized groups and how we might rethink the approaches to understanding access to justice. We offer a more nuanced understanding of people’s digital journeys through bringing procedural justice to the concept of digital legal consciousness, as well as three dimensions that came out of our data: digital, affective and compound. This wider perspective can help identify barriers to access and inform strategies to improve access to justice. Ultimately, a more fine-grained understanding of digital legal consciousness will require ongoing research and collaboration between legal practitioners, policymakers and technology experts.

Restricted access

This book extends existing research by examining the effect of rapid digitalization and the notion of digital justice on the delivery of justice. We follow help-seeker pathways to justice across two areas: housing and special educational needs and disabilities. We question whether a siloed landscape of advice, NGOs, tribunals and ombuds can provide adequate access to justice; what lessons about digitalization and pathways to justice can be learned; and how trust in justice – the belief that the justice system is fair, effective and open to all – can be maintained.

Restricted access

Chapter 7, Access to Digital Justice, asks the central question: how accessible is online justice? This chapter explores how those who administer justice, those who provide advice and those who use the online justice system experience it. In doing so, we explore how the use of technology in the justice system is shaped by, and may reshape, people’s orientations and sensibilities towards law and technology. We use our data, in this chapter, to explore how consciousness of how people think and feel about the law relates to their capability of acting upon it.

Restricted access

In Chapter 3, Two Areas of Law in Context and the Help-Seeker Journey, we provide the context for the pathways to SEND and pathways to housing. The help-seeker journey follows the person with a problem and legal need through different stages of seeking help, finding advice and reaching an ombuds or tribunal to resolve their problem. For housing we look at the advice sector, the Property Chamber and the Housing Ombudsman; and for SEND we look at the advice sector, the SEND Tribunal, the LGSCO and the PHSO. The emphasis on these institutions allows us to understand in some depth the effects of the pandemic, how such institutions managed to provide their services remotely, and what lessons can be learned for the AJS and the justice system more generally.

Restricted access

Chapter 5, ‘Pathways through the AJS – SEND’, follows a similar structure to Chapter 4; it explores the ideal case help-seeker journeys for people with issues around SEND to understand how access has been compromised and which pathways to justice are difficult to negotiate or blocked. The LGSCO, the PHSO and the SEND Tribunal provide redress for SEND problems. Here too, we will draw on interviews conducted with advice sector professionals, judges, case handlers and users to present how the help-seeker journey unfolds.

Restricted access