When the Justice System Goes Digital: Who Gets Left Behind?

This article was written by Nazneen Bhatia, a first-year LLB student at the LSE and Communications Officer for the Website & Blog of the LSESU Pro Bono Division of the Law Society.

Courts, government services, and legal processes are becoming increasingly digital — from online benefit claims and virtual hearings to automated decision-making. While this is often presented as “modernisation”, for many vulnerable people it creates new barriers to justice rather than removing them. This article will reflect on the digitisation of justice, examining its benefits, drawbacks and exploring how pro bono may be a valuable tool to bridge the gap left behind as our legal system moves online.  

In recent decades, the UK government has intensified efforts to move public services online, driven by efficiency goals, cost-saving pressures, user-experience reforms, and the need for resilience during crises such as the coronavirus pandemic. As early as 1996, the government openly announced digitisation initiatives, with the intention of providing “better and more efficient services to businesses and to citizens”, as well as improving the “openness of government administration.” The conservative administration at the time also stressed that moving various services online would secure substantial cost savings for the taxpayer. (source) The internet has undeniably improved accessibility and engagement, allowing citizens to interact directly with government services, such as through online tax filing, and enabling the provision of services in areas where they were previously unavailable. As technology continues to develop, modern governments show a determination to harness the benefits that the digitisation of governmental services can afford. This is certainly evident in the ‘pro-innovation approach to AI’ deployed by the conservative government in 2024 (source). In the report, Michelle Donelan, Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, expressed her ambition to “revolutionise” the delivery of public services through safe AI development. The United Kingdom was the first government in the world to formally publish an assessment of the capabilities and risks of advanced AI and continues to pioneer AI research and development (source), illustrating a broader political commitment to integrating AI and digital technologies into everyday public administration.

The legal system itself has undergone significant transformation as part of this broader digital shift. In 2016, HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) launched a large‑scale Reform Programme to bring “modern technology and new ways of working” to courts and tribunals, responding to concerns about delays, costs, and outdated paper‑based systems (source). The reform programme aimed to reduce administrative time and costs, simplify processes and make justice more accessible. A practice that became particularly widespread during the covid-19 pandemic is online tribunals, where hearings are held virtually. At the time of the pandemic, online hearings were one of the few ways to ensure justice was still served, rather than halting all legal proceedings entirely. Additionally, virtual proceedings offer various benefits, such as ensuring accessibility for those living far from courts or with physical disabilities, leading to their continued prevalence today (source). 

In early 2026, the Labour administration published a roadmap which has several aims focussed on redesigning public services to be “quicker, more accessible and easier to use.” Certain initiatives designed as part of the roadmap include updating the GOV.UK app to offer personalised services, creating a GOV.UK wallet allowing citizens to quickly and securely prove their identity and creating a new career service. However, the roadmap report also specifically states the intention to ensure that “digital access and confidence aren’t barriers.” Unfortunately, the roadmap report does little to elaborate on what these barriers are and who they may affect most, but this article seeks to identify those barriers and highlight the risks that digitisation may pose to vulnerable groups. 

Certain groups will be digitally excluded if the legal system becomes increasingly online, and while there are benefits to ‘virtual’ hearings and legal services, these groups must be supported to ensure they are not left behind in the rapid ‘modernisation’ of the justice system. Several groups are particularly vulnerable to digital exclusion, including the elderly, disabled people, refugees and asylum seekers, victims of domestic abuse, and low-income households. The elderly often have lower digital literacy and might not have access to the technological facilities necessary to access certain legal services. Age-related impairments could also make it hard for them to engage with online services, such as complex forms or virtual hearings. Elderly people may also feel extremely isolated if they have to undergo the trial process without in-person support or interaction. 

As for the disabled, they are already poorly served by the justice system due to a lack of understanding or recognition towards disabilities and mental health challenges. Remote or video‑based procedures could further hinder communication, understanding, and effective participation, especially for people with learning disabilities, autism, or mental health conditions, leading to miscarriages of justice or unfair verdicts. 

Refugees and asylum seekers often face language barriers, low income, unstable accommodation and limited access to secure internet or devices, which together place them at the sharp end of digital exclusion. Hence, if legal and immigration services were to move online, this could prevent them from filing documents, attending remote appointments, or understanding their rights. 

Victims of domestic abuse might also suffer if legal services become increasingly virtual as they may reside in homes where they are monitored by their abuser or have restricted access to internet services, making access to legal support extremely difficult and, in some cases, dangerous. 

Finally, low-income households may also suffer immensely if legal services continue to be digitised at such a rapid rate without proper infrastructure in place to support those in need. In 2023, it was found that more than 1 in 5 people in the UK lived in poverty, and larger families with 3 or more children consistently face a higher rate of poverty (source). This indicates that a significant proportion of the population may lack reliable internet access, appropriate devices, or the digital literacy required to navigate online services. These households are disproportionately vulnerable to being “digitally excluded” from online courts and legal services, but are the very same households who rely most on legal support to apply for government funding and state support, undermining effective access to justice. 

Beyond access barriers, digitisation also raises concerns about substantive fairness, particularly through AI. Research has shown that AI based systems could include biases which alter outcomes. This could be detrimental to a legal system if more administrative work were to be completed using artificial intelligence systems. AI models are trained on historical data, so if past policing, charging, sentencing or housing decisions were racially or socio‑economically biased, the system “learns” those patterns and repeats them. For example, the American bail system was found to be immensely biased against African Americans, due to AI programming biases (source). If administrative decisions, such as deciding which cases should be prosecuted, examined or prioritised, are left to artificial intelligence, it is likely that marginalised groups, such as ethnic minorities and disabled people, will be further excluded or disadvantaged. So while the 2024 ‘pro-innovation approach to AI’ report may seem outwardly aspirational, an increased reliance on AI could further embed stereotypes and biases into the bedrock of our society, impacting access to justice and the overall fairness of the legal system. 

Aside from concerns about technology, there are increasing concerns about how a lack of human interaction during trials could impact the legal system and procedural fairness. A study conducted in 2023 found that voice, respect and neutrality elements – elements which play a large role in improving satisfaction and acceptance of courts’ decisions - are significantly lower in videoconferencing hearings, as opposed to in-person hearings (source). Another study on criminal bail hearings, based in the United States, found that defendants whose hearings were conducted virtually had between 54-90% higher bond amounts set than their in-person counterparts. (source) It is imperative to recognise the importance of in-person interactions to the justice system, which is actively compromised as services move online. In 2022, the UK government issued guidance on remote hearings, stressing the existence of cases where a fair resolution cannot be achieved remotely and delegating the responsibility to courts to actively consider a participant’s ability to engage when deciding whether to hold trial in person or virtually (source). While this may seem adequate to some, courts already face immense administrative backlog and without a specialised department to oversee the integration of online and in-person legal services, it is likely that some cases may fall through administrative gaps, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups.

While there is plenty to commend about the digitisation of governmental systems, including the legal system, in terms of accessibility and capability, it is important to create robust support systems to counteract the excluding nature of digitisation. The government should invest in ensuring there are alternatives to online services, whereby citizens can access face-to-face support, as well as designing online services in a manner that is considerate of those with lower digital literacy or accessibility requirements. In order to preserve the social elements of court proceedings, increased research must be conducted to set a threshold which can be used to determine which cases and whose cases should be dealt with in-person, to relieve courts of the burden of having to do so themselves. Finally, if the government is committed to digitising their services to a large extent or entirely, there should be publicly funded access points, such as community legal hubs, where individuals can use devices and secure internet connections to access services. Without these, we run the risk of excluding a large proportion of society simply because they do not have continuous access to technology. 

Pro bono clinics and organisations will also play a crucial role in mitigating the effects of digital exclusion. As services move online, these clinics and organisations will have to tailor their services to bridge the gap left behind. Pro bono clinics may adapt to digital changes by offering assistance in accessing or completing online forms, supporting clients with virtual hearings and organising digital literacy sessions. Moreover, it will be of the utmost importance that pro bono services are prioritised for those who are digitally excluded so they can still access justice and attend in-person proceedings with the same knowledge and understanding as everyone else. 

Digitisation has clear advantages, but without careful safeguards, it risks reshaping the justice system around those who are already the most connected, confident and resourced. To prevent technology from becoming a new legal gatekeeper to rights, governments must pair digital innovation with serious investment in offline alternatives, accessibility, and conscious checks on algorithmic bias. Pro bono clinics and community organisations will be crucial in ensuring justice is still served and prioritising fairness above efficiency to ensure those most in need of justice are not left behind.