When Justice Goes Online: Are Seniors Being Left Behind?

Introduction: When Justice Moves Online

As more aspects of everyday life move online, seniors are expected to adapt to technologies not designed with them in mind. Constant updates, complex terms and conditions, online scams, and inaccessible design features such as small text or low contrast can make digital engagement intimidating rather than empowering.  

I have seen these concerns firsthand in my own grandparents, beginning with small struggles like video calling and growing into deeper fears of making costly mistakes or falling victim to online fraud. As technology evolves, many seniors rely on family or caregivers for support, which can lead to feelings of lost independence. When systems that govern essential services and access to justice move online, these challenges become even more significant.

What does “Justice Going Online” Actually Mean?

One of the most significant changes to the justice system in recent years has been the move towards online court processes under the HMCTS Reform Programme. The programme aims to create a “digital by default” justice system by introducing online forms and applications, remote hearings, and digital-first processes across courts and tribunals. The intention is to modernise systems, reduce delays, and improve efficiency.

This reform is part of a wider effort to position digital justice as a solution to longstanding access issues. However, many of these changes are built on the assumption that users have reliable access to technology, as well as the confidence and digital skills needed to navigate online systems. While this may improve access for some, it also raises important questions about whether a digital-first approach works equally well for everyone.

What is the HMCTS Reform Programme?

The HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) Reform Programme was launched by the Ministry of Justice in 2016 to modernise the courts and tribunal system across England and Wales through digital technology and new ways of working. Over nearly a decade, it introduced online systems and digital tools that transformed how millions of cases are handled, with the formal programme concluding in March 2025.

The reform has affected civil, family, tribunal, and criminal proceedings. Its core aims were to improve efficiency, reduce delays, cut costs and move towards a “digital by default” model. In practice, this means fewer in-person hearings, increased use of online applications and case portals, remote video hearings, and greater reliance on automated case management systems.  

Who benefits - and Who Struggles?

The HMCTS Reform Programme undoubtedly benefits many users. Digitally confident users or those living in remote areas may find the system more convenient. For digitally literate individuals with mobility issues, remote hearings can reduce travel and ease participation. In straightforward cases, digital systems may also speed up resolution and reduce delays.

However, these benefits are not experienced equally. Some individuals, particularly older people, may struggle due to digital exclusion, including a lack of access to devices, limited digital skills, or reduced confidence. Physical and cognitive barriers, including impaired vision or reduced dexterity, can further complicate online engagement. Many seniors fear making costly mistakes or falling victim to fraud, leading to disengagement when systems feel intimidating. While the reform assumes a level of independence and digital literacy, justice systems should be designed to accommodate vulnerability rather than overlook it.

Without sufficient support and flexibility, there is a risk that a two-tier experience of justice could emerge, one for those who can confidently navigate digital systems, and another for those who withdraw or struggle to engage. Ensuring meaningful access requires not separation, but support.  

Seniors, Vulnerability, and the Risk of Exclusion

In my previous blog, “Understanding Vulnerability: Why Compassion Matters in Pro Bono Work”, I discussed how vulnerability is situational and constantly shifting, rather than a personal failing. That same understanding is crucial here. When justice systems transition online, vulnerability does not disappear; it simply changes form.

For many seniors, the challenge is not simply about learning new technology. It is about navigating layered systems while managing age-related changes in health, cognition or confidence. When legal processes themselves become dependent on digital navigation, the threshold for participation subtly shifts. Access to justice is no longer determined solely by the merits of a case, but also by one’s ability to operate within a digital framework. This creates a risk of what some scholars describe as a “justice deficit”, where systems become procedurally simpler but not necessarily substantively fair. A process may be easy to initiate online, yet difficult to understand or challenge without confidence or support. In this sense, access exists in theory, but feels fragile in practice.

A report by JUSTICE on preventing digital exclusion from online justice services warns that digital-by-default models can marginalise users who lack access, skills or confidence. While reform aims to streamline and simplify processes, insufficient safeguards risk creating structural barriers for those already experiencing disadvantage, including older people. The concern is not merely inconvenience but narrowing meaningful participation.

If access to courts becomes conditional on digital competence, the principle of equal access to justice is placed under strain. A justice system should adapt to the varying capacities of its users. When it does not, vulnerability is not reduced; it becomes embedded within the system itself.

Can Digital Justice Be Inclusive?

Reform is not inherently exclusionary. Highlighting the drawbacks of digitalisation does not mean rejecting it altogether. When properly supported, digital tools can genuinely improve access to justice. The government’s assessment of access to justice in HMCTS services acknowledges that some groups continue to rely more heavily on non-digital routes and that access is not evenly distributed. There is also a concern that non-digital routes, while technically preserved, may gradually become slower, less resourced or treated as exceptions rather than equal alternatives. If paper applications take longer to process or in-person hearings become harder to secure, a subtle two-speed system could emerge – one streamlined for digital users and another that functions as a second-class service. This ongoing evaluation suggests that inclusive reform remains an active and evolving objective, rather than a finished achievement.

For digital justice to be truly inclusive, however, support must be more than symbolic. HMCTS services  should offer meaningful assisted digital support, maintain optional in-person alternatives, and prioritise plain, accessible language rather than overwhelming users with dense legal terminology. Inclusion requires designing systems with vulnerability in mind, not assuming confidence as the default.

Digital justice must be flexible enough to meet people where they are, rather than expecting people to meet it.

Conclusion: Justice Should Meet People Where They Are

The move toward digital justice reflects a broader transformation in how society functions. Efficiency, innovation and accessibility are legitimate aims. Yet justice is not merely a service to be streamlined; it is a public good that must remain equally accessible to all. My grandparents’ hesitation with technology is not resistance to progress, but a reflection of how rapidly the ground beneath them has shifted.

If the justice system continues to evolve, it must do so with awareness of those who move at a different pace. Digital reform should expand access, not redefine who can realistically participate. A truly modern justice system is not simply online, but one that adapts to the capacities of the people it serves. Justice should meet people where they are, not where it expects them to be.

References:

Ministry of Justice, Transforming Our Justice System: Joint Vision Statement by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals (2016).

Richard Susskind, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (OUP 2019).

JUSTICE, Preventing Digital Exclusion from Online Justice Services.

Adrian Zuckerman, ‘No Justice Without Lawyers – The Myth of an Inquisitorial Solution’ (2014) 33 Civil Justice Quarterly 355.

Civil Justice Council, The Resolution of Small Claims (ODR Advisory Group, January 2022).

GOV.UK, Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services.

Disclaimer: Please be advised that we are law students and not licensed to give legal advice. These posts are made for educational and informational purposes only. This should not be interpreted as legal advice. For guidance on a specific legal issue you may have, please contact a licensed legal professional (i.e., Barrister or Solicitor).

Written By: Dalreen Kaur - Blog Writer for Senior Solutions Project