‘Justice champions’ scheme unmasked as hollow pledge with zero funding

Judiciary’s pledge to improve court access crumbles after MoJ admits zero funding provided

The government’s latest promise to boost transparency in the justice system has been exposed as an empty gesture after it emerged that no money has been allocated to fund the new ‘open justice champions’.

Last month, High Court judge Mr Justice Nicklin announced the initiative in a keynote speech titled “Open Justice – Fit for Purpose”. He stated that the judiciary’s Transparency and Open Justice Board, alongside HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS), would introduce regionally based “champions” tasked with improving public access to court hearings—particularly remote ones.

These so-called champions were intended to act as a central contact point for anyone facing barriers in observing legal proceedings, whether in person or via video link. However, Nicklin stopped short of offering any practical details about who would take on these roles or how the initiative would be implemented.

The Gazette has now learned, through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Ministry of Justice, that the scheme has no dedicated budget and no concrete appointments—casting doubt on the entire project.

In its FOI response, the MoJ said: “We do not hold the information due to the ongoing development of the Open Justice Champions Scheme, therefore this information does not yet exist.” When asked specifically about funding, it added: “There is no new funding for these roles. The skill of understanding open justice and enacting open justice is already an expectation of employees in the MoJ.”

Sources told the Gazette that the champions, if they ever materialise, will likely be existing mid-level civil servants assigned to offer basic resources and information—rather than any newly recruited specialists.

Critics say the revelation raises serious concerns about the government’s commitment to making the justice system more transparent and accessible. At a time when public trust in legal institutions is fragile, and when accessing hearings—particularly remote ones—remains a challenge, the lack of action is being seen as a glaring failure.

The judiciary’s Transparency and Open Justice Board, chaired by Nicklin since last year, was tasked with making the legal system more open to scrutiny. But without financial backing or formal staffing plans, its flagship scheme now appears symbolic at best.

The notion of “open justice” has become increasingly fraught in the digital era, with remote hearings criticised for being opaque, inconsistent, and difficult for the public to access. While the introduction of champions was seen as a potential solution to those problems, today’s revelations suggest the initiative is more spin than substance.

Lawyers and observers have long raised concerns about gatekeeping, poor communication, and patchy enforcement of the principle that justice must be seen to be done. In that context, the idea of ‘open justice champions’ was welcomed as a possible step toward clarity and accountability.

But without funding, recruitment, or an implementation plan, even that modest ambition appears to be evaporating.