Report comment

In China, citizens and lawyers are routinely detained and abused by the state, with scant regard to UN principles of justice. Disturbingly China is also developing software, to enable the State to predict the behaviour of its citizens. In Russia the legal system has become so heavily tainted by corruption and politicisation, that its citizens also have little faith that justice will prevail.

Therefore, when politicians here start using the expression “modernisation” in the context of UK justice, then we must all be worried, since this is not just a case of the impact of such measures on justice today, but the effect such measures will have in the future, especially with a more extreme administration. Blair used such an expression, when he abolished the independence of the office of Lord Chancellor.

Routine aspects of a case can still have a critical impact on an final outcome, and unqualified members of the MOJ could inadvertently corrupt justice, by bad decision making.

Delivering justice should be a transparent process, not limited to a few civil servants, and in the context of savage cuts to our legal system, any future digitisation must be carefully examined.

I assume at this critical juncture for UK jurisprudence, that the Law Society will be forming a task force to educate the public and politicians as to what is stake, if this "modernisation" is merely a cloak to mask an increasingly poorly resourced, less just legal system.

The country which gave the world the principles of Magna Carta, faces the prospect of a legal system, which tips the scales of justice significantly in favour of the state and big business.

"Justice by algorithm" is a frightening prospect.