Courts, tribunals, advice services and online dispute resolution are increasingly delivered via digital platforms. While the shift to digital justice promises greater access, efficiency and consistency, it also risks intensifying existing inequalities or creating new barriers for those already marginalised. As a result, equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) have become central to the design and governance of justice systems.
Last July, the Online Procedure Rule Committee (OPRC) launched a consultation seeking views on its draft inclusion framework and pre-action model. This draft outlines the OPRC’s ambition to ensure that, as the justice system becomes increasingly digitised, it remains accessible, fair and transparent for all users – an ambition welcomed by the Forum of Insurance Lawyers (FOIL). However, the launch of the framework also highlights the challenge of translating ambition into effective practice. Without careful attention to practical deliverability, there is a risk that the goal of genuinely accessible online justice may not be fully realised.
Why EDI matters in online justice
If certain groups, such as older people, non-native English speakers or people with disabilities, find themselves systematically disadvantaged by digital procedures, the legitimacy of online justice systems is undermined. Digital exclusion remains a reality, as not everyone has equal access to devices, reliable internet, digital knowledge or stable environments that facilitate engagement with legal processes.
Many users also face overlapping forms of disadvantage, including poverty, language barriers, physical or cognitive impairments, poor literacy or lack of legal knowledge. Without inclusive design, non-digital options, or assisted digital support, the shift to online justice may leave behind those who already struggle with the traditional system.
All justice systems rely on public trust, so ensuring inclusion, transparency and meaningful feedback opportunities builds confidence in their effectiveness. EDI demands accountability through tracking who is being excluded and why, enabling services to improve and adapt. Moreover, inclusion offers practical benefits. Accessible systems are more efficient, with fewer errors, reduced drop-off rates, and lower operating costs.
Justice for all
At the centre of the OPRC’s framework is a commitment to access to justice for everyone. OPRC identifies inclusion as a ‘justice imperative’, grounded in user-centred design, accessibility by default and continuous improvement. It calls for digital justice services that remove ‘physical, cognitive, linguistic and psychological barriers’ and make allowances for data poverty, device limitations, language and trauma.
There is broad support across the sector for these objectives. FOIL, for instance, in its response to OPRC consultation, echoes these sentiments, endorsing universal access and agreeing that digital inclusion must be central to system design. However, it is also crucial for inclusion to be situated within the wider operational context of digital justice reform. There is a concern that inclusion measures, if insufficiently defined or overly prescriptive, risk creating uncertainty or unintended barriers to delivery. Inclusion, therefore, should be approached as an integral but balanced component of reform – one that is informed by real-world constraints as well as the lived experience of users.
Practical constraints of implementation
Ambition versus deliverability
While the OPRC’s inclusion principles are credible, the framework risks setting a very high bar for successful delivery. The OPRC sees public and private service providers aligning with identical inclusion standards. FOIL, however, in its consultation response, challenges this ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach.
Private innovators and niche providers will be essential to digital justice’s success, but placing identical obligations on those without the scale or resources of public bodies could deter innovation and participation. Striving for perfection might in fact deter the good. A phased approach allowing providers to progressively build inclusivity may lead to better long-term outcomes.
Balancing inclusion with functionality and cost
Inclusion cannot advance without clarity on funding and integration. The OPRC’s framework does not specify how new inclusion standards will be financed or whether users might bear costs through fees. Imposing mandates without a clear funding plan could jeopardise sustainability and affordability, ultimately undermining the core objective of enhancing access.
Even well-resourced public digital initiatives, such as the Claims Portal and Official Injury Claim platform, have struggled to meet expectations around application programming interface integration, user-centred design and data transparency. While the OPRC expects inclusion to remove all barriers, this comes with substantial costs that may prove unsustainable without a clear financial strategy.
Assisted access and community support
The OPRC framework advocates for services directly usable by all, regardless of individual capability or resource. However, many users, particularly those with limited digital literacy or access, rely on assisted support from family, community groups or legal professionals. Instead, a relational model of access should perhaps be favoured, where inclusion is achieved through support networks and flexible routes, rather than universal self-service.
Governance and representation
The OPRC emphasises transparency, accountability and stakeholder engagement. However, the committee’s current structure, with only a single legal practitioner representative, limits genuine two-way communication. In fact, in its consultation response, FOIL recommends establishing a legal practitioner stakeholder group to provide formal feedback channels and ensure balanced representation, highlighting a practical gap between stated intentions and operational mechanisms.
The way forward
The OPRC’s draft inclusion framework and pre-action model represent an important step in recognising that digital justice must be designed around the needs of all users, particularly those at risk of exclusion. Before its framework is finalised, however, the OPRC should consider a more iterative, collaborative pathway to inclusive digital justice, with early, broad engagement on policy principles.
As the justice system continues to digitise, the challenge will be ensuring that inclusion is not treated as an abstract ideal, but as a practical, workable component of reform that can be delivered consistently across diverse providers and user groups. FOIL’s consultation response reflects this balance. While supporting the principle that digital justice must be inclusive and accessible, it emphasises the need for clear standards, realistic expectations and meaningful engagement with those responsible for delivering and operating digital systems. Where FOIL’s emphasis on practical feasibility meets the OPRC’s vision for universal fairness, there is potential for a balanced model of digital inclusion that is both ambitious and achievable.
Steven Brownlee is a technical author at the Forum of Insurance Lawyers. This is the first in a series of columns from FOIL
No comments yet