Technology and Access to Justice

In the legal sphere, technological reform of the judiciary has prompted discourse surrounding the effectiveness of technology in tackling social disparities. While it is indisputable that technology has had and will continue to have a profound influence on the legal system in the United Kingdom, it remains contentious whether, regarding access to justice, such an influence is advantageous.

Justice Reform

In the United Kingdom, a GBP 1 Billion justice reform programme was launched by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) in 2016 (The HMCTS Reform Programme (2018), The initiative is targeted at changing approaches to the administration of justice. One of the main elements hindering access to justice is the inability for individuals and the state to afford legal proceedings. In an effort to cut costs, 50% of courts have been closed since 2016 and it is expected than many more will follow in the years to come (Constituency Data: Magistrates’ Court Closures (2019), House of Common Library). Through the implementation of such measures, the HMCTS has achieved a result antithetical to their objective. Geographically, access to justice is significantly frustrated as opportunities to achieve justice become more remote. Nonetheless, the HMCTS maintains its commitment to promoting access to justice. Though it may seem counterintuitive to decrease the number of available courts whilst pursuing accessible justice, such measures introduce an opportunity for technology to become a more primary tool in the legal sector.

The Role of Technology

In the United Kingdom, mechanisms are already in place to reduce inefficiencies in the judicial system. Cases of limited complexity can be dealt with online with the support of a mediator thereby reducing state expenditure on legal services which may be alternately purposed to support vulnerable groups without access to justice. Technology enables greater efficiency and consistency in legal practice. Various software such as research, verification, and archiving technologies are bound to reduce the hours spent on a case. Tasks considered mundane to the average lawyer have the potential to be quickly and efficiently concluded by such software ultimately reducing the cost of legal services and subsequently increasing access to justice. Legal software does not only increase access to justice in the obvious sense in which it makes it more affordable, it also makes the law more accessible in terms of comprehension. There are countless apps that have recently been introduced into the market which contain a library of explanatory videos, simple definitions, and opportunities to live-chat with a legal professional. Technology simplifies the law for the layperson and facilitates a ‘self-help’ approach to legal practice. The significant influence legal technology has on an individual’s ability to access justice on their own has the possibility of reducing the need for expensive legal services and proceedings.

Social Media

Social media undoubtedly enjoys a major influence over society. The more legal institutions develop an online presence, the greater their reach. Various non-profit organisations use social media profiles to educate the public of their rights. Many such profiles even provide the opportunity to be matched with a practitioner based on particular needs. As many may not even think to consult a legal software to become informed, social media allows different institutions to educate the public in a non-confrontational manner. In contemporary society, having a social media profile on one or more platforms is quite likely and it appears that using social media to improve access to justice has the capacity to reach much of the population.

The Digital Divide

Nevertheless, the digital divide cannot be ignored. Statistics show that the elderly and economically disadvantaged individuals are those most affected by the digital divide. Older generations are often sceptical of technological advancements and may choose to opt out of the newest developments. Alternatively, those who are economically disadvantaged may find themselves unable to afford or access relevant technology. If the HMCTS justice reform programme is focused on modernising the courts system, one must consider how this may influence those without adequate access to or understanding of technology. As a means of remedying this issue, the United Kingdom has committed to assessing the impact of the reform programme and implementing appropriate solutions. As such, the HMCTS has introduced an external advisory panel which objectively considers outcome, access, and costs in relation to the programme (Ibid.). Continuous monitoring allows the programme to adapt quickly and limits opportunities to hinder access to justice. Through constant analysis of the impact of reform, it appears that technological advancements in the judiciary have the potential to become of great benefit. The advisory panel aims to focus their evaluation on vulnerable groups and those with limited technological capabilities.


It appears obvious that the technological revolution occurring in the legal sphere has had a profound influence on all those involved. Technology has positively influenced the judiciary in that it has enabled service extension, cost restriction, resource preservation, and enhanced legal services efficiency. Contrarily, the technological reform of justice has indeed exercised a negative influence over access to justice for vulnerable groups. Technology facilitates the progression of the legal system into an innovative and forceful system. The generation of financial savings and increased efficiency should not disrupt the function of the courts. While it remains contentious whether technology in the legal sector has wholly positive or negative influences on access to justice, it is evident that consistent evaluation of progress can lead to a technologically advanced legal system that supports all vulnerable groups regarding access to justice. While developing technologies, the equality of the legal system should remain the foremost concern. Current systems are not yet fully capable of furthering access to justice, but constant evolution and assessment should eventually promote this ambition.

Reflection on the Magistrates’ Scope of Sentencing Powers

By Charmaine Chang


In 2003, the commencement of Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 extended magistrates’ sentencing powers to 12 months’ custody to clear court backlogs. At present, crimes warranting a jail term of more than 6 months must be sent to Crown Court for sentencing. However, the extensive discretionary power for legally untrained magistrates has been criticized as the “height of irresponsibility” . By bringing this crisis in the criminal justice system to my attention, JUSTICE’s Magistrates Project prompted me to look beyond the black-letter law and personally assess the processes and outcomes in respect of lay magistrates’ decision-making powers.

i) The backlog in criminal courts
The increasing backlog of cases has been exacerbated by COVID and has impacted the victims and defendants negatively. Some defendants are held in custody on remand while waiting for months and years to have their cases heard. Victims found it harder to recover from their traumatic experiences, as they revisit those experiences on the postponed trial date. The caseload in the Crown Court increased substantially since mid-2019, in particular, London’s Crown Court backlog increased by 72% (compared with 18% in the Southwest). The use of remote hearings may be invaluable, but the backlog of cases continued to be a barrier to efficient justice.

ii) The strengths of magistrates’ courts
The perceived strengths of magistrates include awareness of “local needs”, “broad experience of life” with diverse perspectives, fact-finding, bail, and sentencing. However, often, three magistrates were needed to spend time in simple cases such as road traffic cases. Further, it is not unusual that the defendant does not turn up or does not contest the matter as we have observed. It appears that just one magistrate is enough deal with these straightforward matters to fully utilise manpower. Extending the sentencing power of magistrates allowed them to deal with more cases, not leaving resources idle. In fact, the Ministry of Justice estimates that extending the sentencing power of this could free up almost 2,000 extra days of crown court time a year. Thus, to fully utilise the core strengths of magistrates and reduce the backlog, increasing custodial sentencing powers appear to be an attractive option.

iii) Risk of injustice
However, the fact that magistrates are not legally qualified casts doubts on the wisdom of increasing their sentencing powers. Nicholas Moss JP warned against the risk of magistrates’ sentences being more punitive than those currently imposed by the Crown Court, and it was said to be “a legitimate public policy concern”. It is concerning that the outcomes of more serious crimes, such as attempted murder, serious injury, were left in the hands of lay magistrates. Based on our observation, we also recognised that in practice, there is too little time for magistrates to make decisions with a heavy caseload. These factors led to insufficient reasoning from magistrates.

Beyond imposing additional pressure on the prison population as envisioned by successive governments, short sentences are shown to have a disproportionate impact on the impecunious and marginalised. Not only do sentences less than 12 months provide no real support to individuals to overcome issues concerning mental health or homelessness, but it also worsens their vulnerability. Alternatively, the Ministry of Justice’s community-based solutions might be even more effective in preventing crimes. The All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on women in the penal system further argued that arrests of women are often unnecessary and disproportionate for being drunk or being a nuisance. While I do not fully endorse such a proposition of reducing arrests on a particularly vulnerable group, it is clear that supplementary measures are needed to safeguard substantive equality.

iv) Lack of Transparency
The commencement of s 154 is also criticised for its lack of transparency. Previously. Transform Justice has asked for information on the Ministry of Justice’s modelling on increased sentencing power of Magistrates, for access to the Ministry of Justice’s modelling on increased sentencing powers for magistrates. Yet, the Secretary of State responded that a model predicting the policy impact on all stakeholders across the criminal justice system was “not currently available”. Given the lack of impact assessments, its impact on the prison population is obscure.

While the new measure appears to empower magistrates to deliver swifter justice, the paramount concern lies in maintaining public confidence of just sentencing, subject to modern expectations of more efficient modelling. I believe further training and development of magistrates’ courtroom performance needs to be improved by the introduction of a specific qualification. Additional guidance, impact assessment and details of magistrates’ training should also be made available to the public to allay concerns. Overall, the court observing experience has been rewarding in terms of practical knowledge and the insight gained into the criminal justice system. However, one limitation of the project might lie in the variety of cases, in which the application of the Bail Act 1976 may not apply to each bail hearing. Nonetheless, such observations raise serious issues to be analysed and examined further and are an incredible opportunity to see the law in action.

Access to Justice and Family Law in a Post-LASPO Era

By Charmaine Chang


Since the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), the demand for free legal advice has been growing steadily. However, due to the limited capacity of legal aid family lawyers, access to justice has been greatly impeded. Not only do multiple clients fail to engage with an affordable solicitor, but vulnerable family members have also been adversely affected by unresolved legal problems. As a student assistant in UCL Integrated Legal Advice Clinic (iLAC), the 4-month experience has shed light on the scarcity of free legal advice.

Effect of LASPO
A month ago, I received a call from an anxious elderly man, who was concerned about his daughter being abused by her husband. She had called several law school clinics and solicitors, but only to find that there was limited capacity for a free consultation. Looking for information online did not help him to bring a claim for his daughter on his own. The pandemic further worsened the situation when his daughter was stuck at home with her abusive husband. Unfortunately, as the clinic does not specialise in family law, the client was only able to receive one-off advice on family legal problems. This led to me wondering if one-off advice would amount to an effective solution to solve their urgent legal problems. While we did signpost him to other clinics with expertise in this area, the delay again, may deter them from seeking legal aid.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that low-income earners often may not have the social network that extends to people with relevant expertise to help them. Research published by the Ministry of Justice found that most litigants in person in the family courts are unrepresented as they were ineligible for legal aid and could not afford representation . Given the complexity of family law, it is unlikely that victims could adequately represent themselves when navigating domestic abuse proceedings, divorce, or child proceedings. This is particularly true for victims with protected characteristics, be it long-term illness or disability.

The adverse effects of legal aid cuts in the family law context mainly affect women and children, which undermines substantive equality. The distress that stems from legal problems also seems to be worsened by the legal proceedings themselves. Placing the victim in the court, and potentially facing the unrepresented abuser only serve to perpetuate the experience of abuse. Worse still, direct cross-examination may even deter victims from pursuing legal protection, ultimately barring them from access to justice.

Alternatives to legal aid
While the legal aid cuts seem to increase the importance of pro bono lawyering for the most vulnerable, the lack of capacity in pro bono clinics ranging from LawWorks, the Bar Pro Bono Unit, Citizens’ Advice Bureaux to Law Centres and the lack of funding in the clinics means that they do not present the most suitable solution.

The backlog of hearings and the legal aid cuts may have prompted a move towards Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) but is arguably not the most helpful alternative for the vulnerable. In justifying the legal aid cuts, the government recognised that the legal aid reform will force individuals, businesses and public bodies to “take up mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution to help solve their problems”, which is in line with Family Justice Review. While the benefits of alternative dispute resolution – cost-effective, efficient, less adversarial etc are rightly recognised, some cases are not suitable for mediation. For instance, dealing with and cross-examining expert evidence to serious sexual, physical harm of a child, and cases where serious mental health issues are involved. However, the exclusion of these important cases is not sufficiently remedied.

Given that it is the state’s responsibility to provide legal aid, and to retain quality advocacy in the publicly funded legal system, it is clear that reform is needed to secure fairness in the justice system. As a law student with aspirations to practice family law, my pro bono experience gave cause to reflect upon the role of legal practitioners, students and the state to narrow the gap between the law’s stated ideals and the reality of its implementation. For the benefits it brings to the public and lawyers from the most junior ranks to the senior, encouraging a pro bono ethic is of paramount importance to relieve the damage being done to families to meet the need created by LASPO.

The Failure of the GCM and the ICRMW to Protect Migrant Workers From Injustice

By Fraser Barnstaple



One international access to justice issue relates to the protection of migrant workers. Two key documents which contain important provisions for migrant workers are the Migrant Workers Convention (ICRMW) and Global Compact for Migration (GCM).

Migrant workers are, by nature, vulnerable within society. They lack the support, rights and familiarity which citizens enjoy, and the international community has not done enough to address these issues. The ICRMW and GCM are supposed to protect the interests of migrant workers. This post will explain why despite the value brought by the documents, they fail to provide effective protection for migrant workers. Consequentially, and the key point in relation to access to justice, is that migrant workers do not have effective means of shielding themselves from the injustices they face. Another purpose of this blog post is to draw attention to the lack of protection for migrant workers which increases the potential for injustice, as they remain exposed to exploitation in various ways, such as by discrimination and inequality that results in them obtaining a reduced level of rights and power within society.


What is the ICRMW and GCM?

The ICRMW ‘represents the most comprehensive treaty specifically devoted to the rights of migrant workers’. It was adopted in 1990 (but was not in force until 2003 due to limited ratification – discussed below) and its compliance is overseen by the Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW). The GCM is a more recent development and describes itself as a ‘non-legally binding cooperative framework’ with the purpose of making ‘an important contribution to enhancing cooperation on migration’ (Para 15). It mostly reaffirms and restates important objectives for migrants such as the prohibition on slavery and forced labour (Art 11), the right to liberty and security of person (Art 16) and equality with nationals’ employment payment and other working conditions (Art 25).

Why are these important? Migrant workers are often exploited for cheap, unstable labour under poor or sometimes extremely dire, working conditions. More generally, migrants are vulnerable to abuses and exploitation and need protection via an effective system of international human rights. These rights, and all rights of migrant workers, are important because 169m out of 272m international migrants in 2021 were migrant workers. Therefore, the ICRMW and GCM are arguably more relevant now than they have ever been.


Why are the ICRMW and GCM inadequate?


The ICRMW is significantly flawed. Currently, just 55 nations have ratified it. This is a real shame because the rights contained in the ICRMW have the potential to provide access to justice for migrant workers. Low ratification could be for various reasons, the primary being, as Alan Desmond (a prominent academic in Immigration and Refugee Law) notes, a lack of political will. Another reason, linked to the previous, is that Part III ICRMW provides rights for all migrants- both legal and illegal, which many states are reluctant to recognise. Furthermore, most ratifying nations are from the ‘global south’. The world’s most developed countries, including all EU-member states, have not ratified. These nations have the best capability to implement ICRMW and provide expertise on the implementation and governance of the treaty. Furthermore, these developed countries are primarily countries of destination. These factors greatly weaken the protection provided by the ICRMW, leaving its benefits relatively obsolete in many states. This, in turn, has affected migrant workers’ access to justice because the benefits of the treaty, such as the rights mentioned earlier on in the post including the labour rights and other rights of freedom, cannot be enjoyed in countries such as the UK and the USA, where a vast number of migrant workers reside. It also calls into question the commitment amongst Western states to international human rights and values.

Additionally, the CMW is ineffective. Vincent Chetail, a leading academic describes it as ‘the poor cousin of the UN treaty bodies’. It oversees state compliance with the ICRMW through various functions, the most important being concluding observations on states’ reports. However, these are merely recommendations and are not binding. Additionally, Articles 76 and 77 ICRMW provides important inter-state and individual complaint mechanisms. However, neither has come into force because the committee’s competence to do these tasks has not been recognised by enough states. The CMW is therefore deprived of the ability to make some important interventions, making it a weak and severely constrained committee. This consequentially weakens the effectiveness of the ICRMW because its implementation mechanism is flawed, meaning the rights designed to protect migrant workers remain on paper and do not facilitate justice or prevent injustice in reality.

It is undeniable that the ICRMW has been inadequate. However, there is optimism that the ICRMW can be effective in the future. It can be used as a lobbying tool and benchmark to critically assess current migration policies and encourage higher minimum standards by ‘contextualising a broad range of existing [HRs] to the specific situation of migrant workers’. This concentration on migrant workers’ rights can therefore be very valuable. Therefore, the value of the ICRMW may be more in sentiment than in substance. Additionally, south-south migration now exceeds south-north migration. Therefore, the ICRMW may gain greater significance given the ‘global south’ ratifying countries are experiencing increased migration.

These are some positive signs, suggesting the ICRMW is not completely redundant. However, it is not close to providing the protection required for workers as it stands. Simply, without the ratifications, it will continue to have limited significance.



Fortunately, the GCM has various benefits over the ICRMW. Unlike the ICRMW, it does not suffer from a lack of ratification or awareness. It gained 152 votes in favour before being adopted by the UN and is far more visible. Although it may be non-binding, the weapon of naming and shaming can be useful, particularly given the strong public awareness of the GCM. This provides added motivation for states to comply with the GCM to avoid embarrassment/criticism amongst the international community.

Moreover, the GCM fulfils its role of reaffirming and restating human rights objectives through its guiding objectives such as ensuring migrants have proof of identity and adequate documentation, and facilitating ethical recruitment and decent working conditions. This is valuable because the strong visibility of the GCM means objectives it restates can benefit lesser-known treaties (e.g., ICRMW). The GCM comprehensively covers 7 major issues, including the right to family life and non-discrimination. The nature of the GCM as a new document means it had the benefit of being flexible to recent issues and benefitted from hindsight over other documents’ flaws. Therefore, it does fill in some of the gaps left by the ICRMW and compensates for a few of its shortcomings.

The main drawback of the GCM is a consequence of being a soft law document. Being soft law was arguably necessary to gain ratifications and avoid the difficulties experienced by the ICRMW, but it consequently has a weak review and implementation mechanism. This, coupled with the fact the GCM primarily simply restates and reaffirms rights, makes it hard to see how it progresses migrant rights at all. Consequentially, for all the rights it reaffirms, the GCM does not, on a closer examination, improve access to justice for migrant workers.

Furthermore, the GCM omits a cardinal international law principle – the right to leave. This could be seen as ‘instituting a hierarchy, with the rules included in the GCM enjoying global support and those excluded no longer finding favour in the post-2015 regime’. One reason for this may be because the roots of the GCM lie in the Sustainable Development Agenda. One key part of the agenda’s mission was to reduce the ‘brain-drain’ problem for poorer states. Therefore, it is likely that the right to leave was omitted in order to avoid impeding this goal. It is difficult to see another justification for leaving the principle out, and if this was the case, the GCM regrettably sacrificed international law consistency for the benefit of reducing the ‘brain-drain’.

Additionally, GCM Part 6 can be criticised for providing rights for only those with formal employment contracts, thus excluding those in irregular work. This is inconsistent with international human rights standards (e.g., Part III ICRMW (above)) and risks undermining protection for migrants. This is particularly important because not only are migrant workers more likely to be given informal contracts due to their lower rights status, but it also exacerbates this issue because it makes it easier for employees to hire migrant workers on an informal or irregular basis, making them less likely to gain the benefits of labour rights as well.

It should be noted that the ‘legal and policy developments and academic commentary [regarding the GCM] are… all still in their infancy’. Perhaps it is too early to condemn the GCM. However, it is clear that deep-rooted weaknesses exist, potentially hampering the document’s ability to ever truly provide a strong and complete mechanism of rights for migrant workers. The test of time will reveal how effective this document can be for protecting the rights of migrant workers.



Migrant workers remain woefully unprotected, despite the ICRMW and recent introduction of the GCM. The lack of meaningful ratifications of the ICRMW in addition to the weakness of the CMW is particularly damaging. However, there is still hope, particularly for the GCM. Its reaffirmation of key principles and high visibility could see the GCM fill in the gaps of the ICRMW. However, its position as a soft law document reduces its ability to be a powerful advocate for migrant workers. Unfortunately, the failings of these documents leave migrant workers exposed to the inevitable exploitation from employees, governments, authorities and other institutions. The international community, therefore, has much work to do before it can be said migrant workers possess adequate protection.

A Step At A Time – with Freedom Legal Clinic

By Ee Vi Lim

First Year Law Student, JUSTICE Court Observer


Walking down the aisle in a grocery stall, you may see rows and rows of delicacies – but underneath it, there are also rows and rows of price tags. As humans, we appeal to the sense of justice and some of us may often make passionate declarations about societal welfare and our ideas of fairness. Given that, it is easier to think of justice in this abstraction than having to face the practical realities when it comes to its implementation. Though priceless in virtue, justice will inevitably come with a price tag.

As Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights promises, everyone will have the right to a fair trial. Still, access to courts is far from free. For a perspective, a day of hearing in the crown court (which is where criminal offences are usually sent to) already costs £1,200. This is not including legal fees which can go up to £200 per hour for senior lawyers, time off work, and so on. These figures are just for 1 day, or 1 hour, let alone having to compound these for rounds and rounds of appeal.

In the face of a structural issue of this magnitude, I knew that passion alone would not be enough. Hence, I was scouting for a platform and for guidance to effectively make an impact. This is where I met Freedom Law Clinic.

I still remember how 3 months back, I was a new case worker going through my induction training to be familiarised with the landscape of criminal law and the appeal process. This insight helped me to navigate through the system because, not long after, we had to put theory into practice by working hands-on with an actual criminal case involving a serious offence. In groups, we hunted through thousands (yes, literally thousands) of pages of facts and evidence to find materials that would help to support our case.

Initially, the task seems to be overwhelming but I soon realised that we will get nowhere with mere consumption of information. Thankfully, in our supervisions with a lawyer mentor, I have learnt to strategize and develop more efficient approaches to filtering out the materials. When all events are interconnected with each other, it is hard to understand the part without understanding the whole and vice versa. As I dive deeper into the case, the picture seems to be clearer and clearer. I am grateful that this learning experience not only enhanced my fact-distilling skills but also made me appreciate the work behind the condensed judgements that are produced.

Although it sounded obvious, it really struck me when I was working on this real case that the law is dealing with actual human lives. I remember that before coming to law school, a senior told me that to be a good lawyer, it is important to have a sense of responsibility because you are not just dealing with words or essays on papers, but someone’s limbs, or lives, or their life-worth of savings.

Sometimes, however, there is the lingering doubt as to how much can I actually contribute? In the face of a case that has been litigated for more than a decade, a case analysis or the identification of a few strands of facts can seem proportionally small. Thankfully, our lawyer mentor reminded us that no one can solve a complex puzzle like this alone. We are building on top of the work of batches and batches of case workers, as if inching towards the light after the tunnel – it humbled and reassured me indeed.

It is because of this that we journey, case by case, and step by step to offer access to justice to the people in need. If we think about it, each case that we work on would not just affect the life of the person, but also their family, and by extension, the public’s faith in the legal system.

Seeing Justice with JUSTICE

By Ee Vi Lim

First Year Law Student, JUSTICE Court Observer


It is a Friday – like everyone else, I pack up my stuff after lectures, but unlike everyone else, I make my journey to a Magistrates’ Court, ready to start my work as a JUSTICE court observer. On the bus ride there, I always think to myself – “so, what will I see today?”

For Year 1 students like me who have just started to dive into the ink of law on paper, I am grateful that my learnings have not been confined to a viewpoint that is remote from the reality. Because of JUSTICE, I am here now – in a court room – listening to the fate of people who are accused of harassment, violence, misbehaviors and so on being pronounced right before me.

Before coming to Law school, I have read about how the magistrates, who are lay people trained to hear cases in the lower courts, form the backbone of the English Legal System. The practical importance of magistrates is evident as they hear about 95% of all criminal cases, and their constitutional significance dates back to the Magna Carta 1215 which sets the foundational stone that no man shall be convicted except “by the lawful judgement of his equals”. Hence, it is no doubt that the lay representations on the Magistrate’s benches are vital to the doing of justice.

However, reading about something is one thing but experiencing it is another. Having travelled half the globe from my home to live in the English legal system that I have been reading on, I wanted to get an insider view on things for myself. Hence, when the human rights group, JUSTICE was recruiting for court observers, I immediately jumped on the opportunity knowing that this programme would bring me closer to the people behind the names, and the process before the decisions. As a court observer, I am tasked to gather data about the hearings, and so after I reach the courts, I will sit myself down in the public benches, pull out my sheets of observation log and start noting down the information – describing the people who are making the decision, listening to the reasoning that they rely on, observing whether or not the parties are being well represented and so on.

My area of research is centered on bail decisions as to whether or not the accused who is yet to be found guilty can be released into society as they wait for trial or whether they have to be locked up in custody. This makes the difference between being locked up in custody or being trusted to go back into society before being summoned to trials. As the famous saying goes, a man (or a woman) will be innocent until proven guilty; but at the same time, can we afford to bank against societal safety? This is the balance that the magistrates have to navigate through.

Although courts are theoretically adversarial in nature, one thing that really struck me is how collaborative the process can sometimes be. In some cases, the probation officers are consulted, the parties are represented, and the law is cited. Then, the courtroom seems to me like an effective platform where stakeholders can converse and work towards an equilibrium. One of the most memorable moments to me was when a judge kindly addressed the defendant with “sir” and explained him that it is in his best interest to follow the bail conditions, lest he will be put back into jail. The defendant then nodded understandingly. To many, this scene may not be anything special, but the respect proved to me, at least, that we can truly live through the principle that no one will be innocent until proven guilty.

It is these moments of seeing the abstract concept of justice being put into practice that makes the routine of travelling to court, waiting for cases to be summoned, and sitting in the public bench that tiny bit more special.

UCL JLAP Book Drive

By Emilia Kechagia

On 30 November 2021, UCL JLAP completed their first book drive of the academic year in association with the International Book Facility. The books are due to be shipped to Sierra Leone. The ILBF provides good quality second hand legal textbooks, donated by the UK legal community, to not-for-profit organisations in need of legal research resources across the globe. In the past eight years, the ILBF has sent over 20,000 law books, including student textbooks, legal encyclopaedias and law reports, to organisations in over 35, across Africa, Asia, South America, Europe and the Caribbean. Additionally, the ILBF has partnered with other organisations for specialised donations, including for example the establishment of a new library for prisoners in Uganda.


We collected more than 40 books, ranging from textbooks on Criminal Law and Contract Law to guides into becoming a barrister. We would like to thank everyone who participated in our efforts in the past months; students, academics, practitioners and alumni. Your excitement and generosity throughout is much appreciated.


‘It was a really heart-warming and rewarding experience. Seeing students coming into lecture theatres with bags full of books to donate made us all appreciate the value of such initiatives, which ultimately brought us closer as law students and peers’.
Emilia, President


Skip to toolbar