Study finds repeated reforms failed to secure lasting improvements in access to justice
A new report commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation has concluded that decades of civil justice reform in England and Wales have failed to produce significant and lasting improvements in access to justice.
The report, authored by Dr John Sorabji, Associate Professor at University College London’s Centre for Dispute Resolution, examines the four most significant civil justice reviews undertaken since the 1980s and assesses their long-term impact on the justice system. It concludes that while successive reviews generated substantial reform programmes, they did not achieve enduring improvements for court users or meaningfully resolve longstanding barriers to justice.
According to the study, the civil justice system has been subject to an almost continuous cycle of reform for more than four decades. However, despite these efforts, concerns over access to justice have persisted. The report argues that the principal recommendations emerging from major reviews were implemented to varying degrees but ultimately failed to deliver lasting change.
Dr Sorabji identifies what he describes as a fundamental deficit in the way civil justice reform is conducted in England and Wales. The report states that sustained improvements have been difficult to achieve because of four recurring weaknesses: a lack of institutional capacity to coordinate reform, limited use of evidence, an overly narrow focus on courts, and a failure to treat civil justice as a core public institution.
The study also highlights the need for a more sustainable approach to reform. It sets out eight recommendations aimed at improving future review processes and increasing the likelihood that reform programmes will achieve lasting improvements in access to justice. These proposals are intended to strengthen the framework through which civil justice reforms are designed, implemented and evaluated over time.
The report forms part of the Nuffield Foundation’s Public Right to Justice programme, which examines how effectively the justice system serves the public and explores ways to improve access to legal remedies and dispute resolution. The Foundation said the programme seeks to provide policymakers, practitioners and the public with a better understanding of how the justice system operates, where it falls short and how it could better meet the needs of those it serves.
The findings come amid wider research into pressures facing the justice system in England and Wales, including concerns about accessibility, delays and the availability of legal support. The report argues that future reform efforts will require stronger institutional foundations if they are to achieve lasting improvements for court users and the wider public.