Corporate report

Assessing Access to Justice in HMCTS Services - December 2024

Updated 20 December 2024

Applies to England and Wales

1. Introduction

HM Courts and Tribunals Services (HMCTS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) responsible for the courts and tribunal system in England and Wales and non-devolved tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It operates based on a partnership between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.

HMCTS has been undertaking an ambitious programme of reform which will bring modern technology and new ways of working to the courts and tribunals system with the aim of delivering a system that is just and proportionate, whilst also improving access to justice for all users, including vulnerable groups. HMCTS reform is a large and complex programme, made up of over 50 separate projects.

Reform has made it possible to collect a much wider range of data on our users including their protected characteristics, which means we can better understand how to improve access to justice. To meet this ambition HMCTS has developed a framework for assessing access to justice in its services.

An access to justice (A2J) assessment is a practical toolkit that enables HMCTS to identify, fix and monitor access to justice barriers. The assessments use existing data to identify access to justice barriers and additional analysis and primary research to validate the findings, understand the underlying causes and develop solutions. HMCTS then continues to monitor the relevant data in the service to assess if A2J has been improved.

The analytical framework that underpins the assessments has been developed by HMCTS from the definition of access to justice outlined in Byrom, N (2019) “Developing the detail: Evaluating the Impact of Court Reform in England and Wales on Access to Justice”.

The definition consists of four elements:

• Access to the formal legal system
• Access to an effective hearing
• Access to a decision in accordance with law and
• Access to a remedy

From each of these four elements of the definition a series of analytical questions (see Annex A) and corresponding measures, indicators and data sources were identified. Not every element of the definition, analytical question or data source is relevant and analytically robust for every service, so although each assessment uses the framework there is some variation.

The access to justice assessments draw on a wide range of data sources to answer as many of the questions as possible. This includes: management information (e.g. case volumes, timeliness, decisions), protected characteristics (e.g. sex, ethnicity, disability, age), digital data (e.g. take up, completion rate), service specific data (e.g. probate grants re-issued), contact data (calls, complaints, contact surveys) and other data (e.g. UK census data, accessibility tests).

Protected characteristics data is collected for litigants in person who submit applications though the digital route, and for some users who use the paper route where bulk scan (the scanning of paper forms into the digital system) is available. The questions cover all nine protected characteristics, including age, ethnicity, sex, and disability.

Through linking protected characteristics data to case level data, we can understand if and how outcomes or case durations differ by the characteristics of users. The findings of the A2J assessments are based on the principle that a uniform experience for all i.e., no variation in outcomes and timeliness between groups, is a positive indicator of access to justice. Where differences are identified, it could suggest an existing access to justice barrier that requires further exploration.

In November 2023, we published a summary of the findings of the first four completed A2J assessments in probate, divorce, social security and child support (SSCS) and online civil money claims (OCMC) services. We have now completed two further assessments in the immigration and asylum first tier tribunal (IAC) and the single justice service (SJS). This publication provides a summary of findings of these assessments, alongside updates on commitments made in the previous publication.

When considering the findings of the completed assessments, it is worth noting that some of the data used may have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. Additionally, it takes time to complete the access to justice assessments, so the data referenced may seem older than expected. However, the findings in the report reflect the current position of services as we reference follow up work that has been conducted or planned, and we continuously monitor the relevant data.

We intend to complete assessments in the remaining reformed services based on the following three dependencies: reform has been rolled out in the service, protected characteristic questions have been implemented, and when enough time has elapsed that a sufficient number of cases with protected characteristic data have reached a conclusion. Meanwhile we will continue to revisit the completed assessments and ensure that the analysis in these assessments supports services to continue to improve.

Summary of findings:

This publication is not intended as an exhaustive list of every piece of analysis undertaken or data source reviewed but provides a summary of the key findings and barriers that we think will be of interest to a public audience.

Immigration and Asylum (IAC):

The IAC assessment found that services allowing users to submit their appeals online are widely available and widely used, and the digital completion rate is in line with other reformed services.  

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• Some users felt that their case took longer than expected and that there was a lack of information around timelines and the status of their case.
• Variations in case timeliness based on region. For example, appeals managed in Birmingham have a much longer case duration than appeals managed in Bradford, Newcastle, or Newport, regardless of the type of hearing.
• Cases being removed from being online as this can lead to users’ experiencing a delay in their case, and mean they no longer benefit from the expected advantages of the online service.
• Sometimes cases are withdrawn in or just before the hearing, this suggests that the case could have been withdrawn at a previous stage and reduce the delay between application and withdrawal. Additionally, some users were unsure what it meant for them when their case was withdrawn by the Home Office.
• Failed payments, some immigration and asylum appeals are subject to fees and some users who attempted to pay a fee online experience technical errors which prevent them from being able to do this. In most cases users were able to pay their fee on a subsequent attempt.

Further analysis is planned to understand and address these issues including a review to investigate a sample of cases to ensure that they are only being removed from the online service where absolutely necessary.

Single Justice Service (SJS):

The SJS assessment found that there is a high digital take-up rate for police and public transport prosecutors, demonstrating that users are likely to opt for the digital channel and can successfully submit their plea online. Additionally, more non-police prosecutor cases quickly reach an outcome, this includes cases where defendants do not make a plea, for example TV Licensing (TVL) cases align with expectations.  

Potential access to justice barriers include:

• Defendant engagement as users with cases from non-police prosecutors and who are from lower income backgrounds are less likely to make a plea and be engaged with their case.
• Some users experience technical issues which prevent them from being able to access the service and engage with their case. If users encounter these types of issues they need to either: try again later; resort to the paper channel; phone for support; or abandon their attempt to make a plea. This situation is especially problematic for any defendant that attempts to plead close to the deadline for their case.
• Police cases can take a long time to be disposed of when the defendant does not make a plea. This is a particular issue for cases prosecuted by both Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police Force and Essex Police Force. It has the potential to create additional access issues for defendants that change address between their case starting and being disposed of.

Further analysis in planned to understand and address these issues including a review of qualitative and quantitative data to explore opportunities to improve defendant engagement. Additionally, we will also continue to review relevant data i.e., web analytics and user feedback, to ensure changes have the expected impact.

Evidence Gaps:

Specific evidence gaps in IAC include an understanding of the user experience after the application process, understanding who chooses to appeal and who does not, and if there are differences in the user experience of appellants with a legal representative and those without. Additionally, specific evidence gaps in SJS include the full end-to-end journey, including statutory declaration and enforcement stages.

There are commonalities in terms of evidence gaps around user support throughout the process, and core A2J measures around fairness, trust, confidence, and motivation.

These evidence gaps are broadly in line with those identified in the previously completed assessments. Therefore, to be able to gain additional insight across services and fill these evidence gaps, we are continuing to explore the ways in which we can survey our users at the end of their case. The aim of this is to provide insight into the overall user experience of our services, ensure service fixes are made where needed, and help us to continue to deliver evidence-based service design.

2. Immigration and Asylum First Tier Tribunal

2.1 Introduction:

The reformed immigration and asylum service was launched in January 2019 as part of the HMCTS Reform Programme, offering a digital service for users to submit and manage immigration and asylum appeals. Since then, there has been a staggered rollout by appeal type. Initially the online service was only available for legal professionals submitting asylum appeals. It was then mandated for legal professionals from June 2020 for in-country appeals and March 2021 for out-of-country appeals, meaning they must create and manage appeals using the MyHMCTS online platform. From August 2021 onwards unrepresented appellants have been able to apply and manage their cases online through the ‘Appeal an immigration or asylum decision’ service, or through the paper channel.

Immigration and asylum reform also includes new ways of working for the tribunal, professional users and appellants, such as:

• A less complex initial application process
• A new Appeal Skeleton Argument form for legal representatives to build their client’s case, and an equivalent Reasons for Appeal for appellants in person
• A requirement that the Home Office review their decision having received the Appeal Skeleton Argument or Reasons for Appeal form. This provides an opportunity for the Home Office to withdraw the decision or narrow the issues in the appeal
• A move away from listing hearings before they are ready to be heard

Analysis of case outcomes and timeliness focuses on a cohort of case receipts from January to March 2023 (inclusive). This cohort was chosen to be both 1) old enough for most cases to have completed, reducing the risk of biased findings and 2) recent enough to suffer less from missing data because of cases being removed from online (this issue was far more common for cases received prior to December 2022).

The assessment focused primarily on digital appeals as some data from the legacy paper system was undergoing validation at the time of the assessment.

Protected characteristics questions are included in the online service for appellants in person. However, at the time of the assessment the volumes were too low for analysis. We will review response rates on an ongoing basis and look at the potential for follow up analysis incorporating protected characteristics data.

Alongside this access to justice assessment, we are publishing the findings from the evaluation of the immigration and asylum reform programme. There are a number of differences between the two projects which mean they are not entirely comparable:

• The evaluation aims to understand the impact of reform across a number of outcomes, including access to justice. The assessment aims to understand access to justice in the service more generally
• The evaluation focuses more on paper appeals than the assessment, which focuses more on digital appeals
• The evaluation looks at data over a different time period than the assessment, focussing typically on an earlier set of appeals. The assessment uses a later cohort of cases, which allows for a more detailed analysis of appellant in person cases
• The evaluation included primary research, including interviews with legal professionals, appellants and representatives from support organisations. The assessment is largely based on HMCTS data

2.2 Evidence of access to justice:

High digital take up of the online service

Services allowing users to submit their appeals online are widely available and widely used. At the time of publication, Detained appeals are the only appeal type which must be submitted and managed on paper. As expected, use of the online service has increased alongside the staggered roll out:

Immigration and Asylum Tribunal
	1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020	1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021	1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022	1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023	1 April to 30 September 2023
	Full-year	Full-year	Full-year	Full-year	Part year
Total receipts (digital and paper)	42,293	26,211	39,742	37,773	19,189
Total receipts captured onto digital platform Core Case Data (CCD)	380	8,715	19,878	24,570	16,479
Percentage of cases on Digital Platform	1%	33%	50%	65%	86%

Figure 1: Number and percentage of cases captured on the digital platform by financial year. Data published at: HMCTS management information – reformed services September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).

Of the represented and unrepresented appeals received in March 2024, 98% and 73% respectively were submitted using the online service.

Plans are also in place to expand the Digital Support Service to cover in-country immigration and asylum appeals. This is expected to be delivered by the end of the financial year. This will enable users to access support to submit their appeals using the online service if they would find it difficult to independently.

The evidence available also indicates that the online service works well for users. The digital completion rate between January and March 2024 (inclusive) was 82%, which is in line with other services. And very few use the feedback survey to report issues with the online forms. There were just 19 submissions between January and March 2024 (inclusive). However, this doesn’t take into account the quality of online form submissions and how this affects the progression of the case and ultimately users’ access to justice.

Positive feedback about HMCTS support

Users who require support with their appeal can contact a Court and Tribunal Service Centre (CTSC). All those who do are given the opportunity to provide feedback on the service in a short survey. These responses should not be interpreted as representative of all users as only a proportion of those who are eligible to complete the survey choose to do so. However, the feedback has been consistently positive. For example, between January and March 2024 (inclusive) 91% of users reported being satisfied with their experience, 78% said they found it easy to deal with the CTSC/staff member and 84% had their query or issue resolved at the first point of contact. We have analysed the responses of those that were not satisfied, and the most common issue is users not being able to get detailed updates on their case (see ‘Case timeliness’ section).

Short travel time to hearing venues

HMCTS is committed to ensuring that the majority of the population should be within a reasonable journey time of a tribunal hearing centre. This is understood as being 2 hours, as outlined in our Estates Strategy. In 2023, HMCTS estimated travel times for immigration and asylum, by car and public transport using Google travel time data. The results showed that the average travel time by car was 24 minutes, with an estimated 99.3% of users able to reach a hearing centre within 2 hours. The average travel time by public transport was 58 minutes and approximately 87.7% of the population were able to reach a hearing centre within 2 hours. It is worth noting that asylum appellants can request help with travel costs from the Home Office.

2.3 Access to justice barriers:

Long case durations

The most common cause of complaint amongst users is the amount of time it takes for their appeal to reach an outcome, and a lack of clear information in the interim as to their case status and expected timelines.

The following are the published statistics showing time to disposal across offline legacy appeals. Legacy statistics are based on timeliness of completed cases “Legacy Disposals”. This is then compared with reform statistics which is based on Q1 2023 receipts, as statistics for this reform cohort are our best current indication of steady-state disposals. The reform cohort statistics excludes those cases that were removed from the online service.

Case coverage	Period	Lower Quartile	Median	Upper Quartile	Mean
Legacy disposals	Q1 2018	14 weeks	45 weeks	52 weeks	46 weeks
Legacy disposals	Q1 2019	19 weeks	33 weeks	50 weeks	40 weeks
Legacy disposals	Q1 2020	13 weeks	22 weeks	36 weeks	28 weeks
Reform receipts	Q1 2023	30 weeks	39 weeks	53 weeks	N/A*

Figure 2: Clearance times offline and online appeals by quarter. CCD data extracted 3rd April 2024. *This average can not be reported as not all cases have completed.  

Early indications for the Q1 2023 online cohort are at the upper end of the offline range, with a median time to disposal of 39 weeks. This will be due, in part, to the ongoing backlog of cases that arose during the pandemic.

In addition, appeals received between January and March 2023 (inclusive) were analysed to see if there were differences in overall case duration by the following user and case characteristics:

• Region/hearing centre
• Hearing mode (i.e., oral or paper hearing)
• Appeal type (e.g., Human Rights, EU Settlement Scheme)
• Whether the case was submitted in or out of time
• Whether the case record indicated the appellant had health issues or not
• Primary nationality of the appellant
• Whether the appellant was represented or not
• Age of the appellant
• Sex of the appellant
• Whether the appeal was made in or out of country

The results showed either no differences or very minor differences by most of the characteristics tested, therefore this could be interpreted as positive evidence of access to justice.

More substantial differences were found by hearing mode and region/hearing centre. A paper hearing involves a judicial office holder making a decision based on all the evidence provided and without parties present. It is known and expected that appeals which have a paper hearing will have a shorter case duration than those which have a hearing with parties present.

However, the analysis showed large differences by region. For example, cases managed in Birmingham have a much longer case duration than appeals managed in Bradford, Newcastle, or Newport, regardless of the type of hearing.

Hearing centre	Mean time to decision (Oral Hearing)	Mean time to decision (Paper hearing)
Birmingham	305 days	292 days
Taylor House (London)	296 days	256 days
Manchester	269 days	214 days
Glasgow	266 days	135 days
Hatton Cross (London)	265 days	217 days
Newport	234 days	170 days
Newcastle	222 days	107 days
Bradford	202 days	139 days

Figure 3: Clearance times by region for cases disposed with an oral hearing and a paper hearing, for online appeals received between January and March 2023. Data extracted 3rd April 2024. Note: the mean represents the average time taken for those cases that have been decided so far - this will rise as more cases in the cohort are decided.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The reform programme was designed in part to reduce overall case durations, for example, through the provision of online services. Timeliness continues to be a key priority for the service, with data regularly monitored and actions taken. For example, processes are currently in place to move appeals where possible to nearby regions which have greater capacity. Initial monitoring indicates that this has helped to level out the outstanding caseload between regions and should help to reduce disparities in case timeliness. Some administrative tasks have also been reassigned to the CTSC allowing legal officers to focus on progressing cases quickly through the appeals process.

Additionally, we are exploring the option of conducting further analysis to understand any additional factors which may be driving the differences. This may include primary research looking at samples of cases to understand at what stage(s) in appellants’ journey cases take longer in particular regions, and why.

Finally, we are reviewing the timeframes and related information provided to appellants to ensure they are as relevant and accurate as possible.

Cases submitted online but subsequently moved offline:

In some circumstances an appeal can be removed from the online service and processed offline from that point forward. For example, if a user has submitted an online appeal for a case type that can only be appealed offline, or because a user ceases to have representation and is unable to access their online appeal, or if functional limitations of the system means the case cannot progress online. This can have access to justice implications as there can be a delay whilst the case is moved offline, and the user will then no longer benefit from the expected advantages of the online service. The proportion of appeals removed from online has reduced substantially as reform has progressed, expanding the case types which can be appealed online. However, of those represented and unrepresented appeals submitted online between January and March 2023 (inclusive), 4% and 7% respectively were subsequently moved offline.

Next steps for HMCTS:

A review is underway investigating a sample of cases to ensure that they are only being removed from the online service where absolutely necessary. The online service will also have additional functionality in future so that online appeals can stay on the online system regardless of how the case progresses. These updates are expected to be completed by the end of 2024. In the longer-term, plans are in place to move offline appeals online, meaning that whilst users can still submit an appeal on paper, the case can then progress and remain online from that point forward.

Late Home Office withdrawals:

One of the key features of immigration and asylum reform was the introduction of the respondent review stage, providing an opportunity for the Home Office to withdraw from the case if appropriate. This could mean allowing the appellant to enter or stay in the country or may mean the Home Office has to reconsider its decision. Of those appeals submitted between January and March 2023 (inclusive), so far 19% have been withdrawn by the Home Office or the appellant.

However, withdrawals have occurred just prior to or during a hearing. It is in the interests of both parties to ensure the right decision is made at the earliest possible stage. Therefore, this is an area that warrants further exploration to understand whether there is an opportunity to improve access to justice by reducing the delay between application and withdrawal.

Analysis of contact data (such as complaints) showed that some users who had their appeals withdrawn by the Home Office were unclear as to what the outcome was in their case and what they needed to do to proceed.

Next steps for HMCTS:

We will continue to monitor outcomes data. However, the parties have the greatest ability to influence outcomes and there are limits to what the tribunal can achieve. The Home Office are planning to look at respondent reviews as one of many elements within a new programme of joint work with the Ministry of Justice.

Finally, to ensure that those who receive a withdrawal understand their outcome, what it means and the next steps, we are planning a review of the relevant user guidance. This will likely include updated guidance which will have been tested with users.

Errors processing user payments:

Some immigration and asylum appeals are subject to fees. These often have to be paid by the appellant at the time that they submit their appeal form. Between December 2023 and February 2024 (inclusive) 17% of those who attempted to pay a fee online experienced a technical error. In most cases users were able to pay their fee on a subsequent attempt.

Next steps for HMCTS:

An investigation is currently underway to understand the cause of the issue. This involves working with an external provider who facilitates payments with the ultimate objective of reducing the frequency of authorisation rejections.

3. Single Justice Service (SJS)

3.1 Introduction:

The Single Justice Service (SJS) allows magistrates’ courts to deal with minor offences in a way that’s quicker, more straightforward and more efficient, while still being fair, transparent and rigorous. This process is known as the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). A single magistrate, supported by a legal adviser, can decide adult, summary-only, non-imprisonable and victimless offences, including company prosecutions.

This assessment focuses on SJS cases administered via the reformed system. This is the Automated Track Case Management (ATCM) system, which is part of Common Platform. Management information on reformed services published by HMCTS (see Figure 4) shows the gradual increase in the number of receipts administered via ATCM system since 2019.

	Apr 2019 to Mar 2020	Apr 2020 to Mar 2021	Apr 2021 to Mar 2022	Apr 2022 to Mar 2023	Apr 2023 to Sep 2023
Coverage	Full-year	Full-year	Full-year	Full-year	Part-year
Total receipts	787,051	514,430	660,476	730,605	409,830
Of which ATCM	82,778	71,537	122,448	200,765	131,636

Figure 4: Total SJS case receipts and ATCM receipts by year. Source: HMCTS management information – reformed services September 2023

The gradual transition to ATCM has been managed by prosecutor and police force meaning the scope of this assessment is limited to prosecutions by:

• The Driver and Vehicle Licence Agency (DVLA)
• TV Licensing (TVL)
• Transport for London (TFL)
• Merseyrail (Mersey)
• Hampshire Police Force (Hamp.)
• Essex Police Force (Essex)

The police prosecutions are for traffic offences. An expanded group of police forces adopted ATCM in December 2023, but those cases are not included in this assessment as much of the analysis was completed before a usable sample of those cases had been processed.

This assessment was also completed before HMCTS became aware that several train companies have prosecuted in error some specific offences through SJP.

This assessment covers the core aspects of the Single Justice Service, such as whether defendants make a plea after they receive the Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN) and the completion of the SJS process. This means it does not cover the wider magistrates’ court process (relevant where the SJS process results in a referral to a hearing) nor the statutory declaration process (relevant where defendants do not receive the initial SJPN).

Access to Justice issues are best considered separately by prosecutor, especially while the transition to ATCM continues. DVLA cases dominated ATCM by volume in 2023 but this will gradually change as more police forces transition to the new system.

OAC21 Supergroup	DVLA	TVL	TFL	Merseyrail	Hamp. Police Force	Essex Police Force
1 Retired Professionals	44	12	2	45	63	54
2 Suburbanites and Peri-Urbanites	70	36	4	52	108	58
3 Multicultural and Educated Urbanites	104	40	401	85	101	148
4 Low-Skilled Migrant and Student Communities	188	144	413	34	82	189
5 Ethnically Diverse Suburban Professionals	62	23	32	14	68	89
6 Baseline UK	127	178	37	178	161	154
7 Semi- and Un-Skilled Workforce	122	269	4	241	87	39
8 Legacy Communities	125	263	11	640	170	73

This gradual increase in the proportion of ATCM cases that are police prosecutions is important as analysis of defendant postcodes highlights clear differences in geodemographic characteristics by prosecutor (see Figure 5). Geodemographic classifications allow us to group defendants by shared characteristics such as their likely nature of employment and levels of education.

Figure 5: Index of defendants by prosecutor and Output Area Classification 2021, based on May to Oct 2023 ATCM case receipts (Essex cases cover Jul to Oct due to timing of the switch to ATCM) 

The figure shows the distribution of defendants by Output Area Classification 2021 relative to the general population of England and Wales, with an index above 100 indicating a concentration of defendants. For example, DVLA defendants are concentrated in supergroups 4, 6, 7 and 8, all of which are associated with lower incomes. Defendants from these supergroups can be expected to have broader financial concerns that may discourage them from engaging with their case.

Protected characteristics data has been collected and published for defendants in ACTM cases. However, this assessment focuses on geodemographics analysis because that allows us to examine plea rates by defendant characteristics (see section on access to justice barriers).

This assessment focuses on access to justice from the perspective of individual defendants, or defendants grouped by their characteristics, but we recognise that the additional issue of open justice is a priority for external stakeholders. This dimension was acknowledged in the original framework for assessing access to justice.

More information is published on cases processed via the Single Justice Service than cases heard in open court. This allows welcome scrutiny from journalists that has allowed HMCTS to improve practices in response. For cases processed via the Single Justice Service:

• A list of pending cases on the Common Platform is published each day online and is available to the public
• The media is sent a daily list of pending cases including full name, address and offence details, and a list of all results from Common Platform weekly
• Unlike any other proceedings, journalists are entitled to receive the prosecution facts and defence mitigation on demand

3.2 Evidence of access to justice:

High digital take-up rate for police and public transport prosecutors:

The Online Plea service is important for defendant engagement, allowing people that are confident using the digital channel to submit their plea quickly and easily. Data on plea rates and digital take-up by prosecutor shows that, for every prosecutor on ATCM, most defendants that make a plea do so online (see Figure 6).

The proportion of defendants opting for the online channel is highest for police cases and for public transport prosecutors. This shows that when defendants are not constrained by their digital skills, they are very likely to opt for the digital channel and are able to successfully submit their plea online. Defendants have also been able to access the digital support service since June 2022, delivered by HMCTS partner We Are Group.

Of course, from an access to justice perspective, the overall plea rate is more important than the digital take-up rate. Issues with overall plea rates are covered under ‘defendant engagement’ within the section on access to justice barriers.

Prosecutor	Receipts	Plea rate	Digital take-up
DVLA	47,560	21%	67%
Essex Police Force	4,164	47%	77%
Hamp. Police Force	2,268	54%	75%
Merseyrail	2,547	8%	92%
TFL	5,647	19%	77%
TVL	8,711	24%	64%

Figure 6: Plea rate and digital take-up, for cases received August to October 2023 (inclusive).

Time to completion of non-police cases:

Monitoring of case completion times shows that for non-police prosecutors most ATCM cases quickly reach an outcome. Cases do of course take longer to complete when defendants do not make a plea because defendants need to be given the full 21-day opportunity to plead before cases can be processed. However, criminal court case information on outcomes and timeliness is currently undergoing further quality assurance so full details of case timings are not presented here.

3.3 Access to justice barriers:

Defendant engagement:

Defendant engagement is a key issue for the service. Access to justice for an individual case relies on the defendant having an opportunity to: make a plea (given the reduced financial penalty if they plead guilty); request a hearing if they wish to; provide the court with any explanation for their guilty or not guilty plea, if appropriate; and provide information about their finances (to be accounted for if the court imposes a financial penalty).

This assessment drew on evidence from:

• case data analysis, for plea rates by prosecutor and defendant demographics;
• a sample of calls to the service helpline, to review issues raised by defendants; and
• research with staff at the Court and Tribunal Service Centre to understand common issues faced by defendants

Taken together, these sources show that:

• Plea rates are low for non-police prosecutors (DVLA, TVL, TfL, Merseyrail)
• Plea rates are low for defendants from lower income neighbourhoods (see low plea rates for supergroups 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 for most prosecutors in Figure 8)

And that defendants can be:

• Confused about the difference between the official court stage of a case and the earlier interactions with a prosecutor (e.g. when given a fixed penalty notice)
• Overwhelmed by the length and complexity of the SJPN pack, especially defendants that have difficulty reading lengthy documents
• Discouraged or confused by the financial details section of the form, especially if their financial circumstances don’t neatly align with the options provided

There is also evidence that inaccurate address details remain an issue for some defendants, especially those involved in non-police prosecutions.

OAC21 Supergroup	DVLA	TVL	TFL	Merseyrail	Hamp. Police Force	Essex Police Force
1 Retired Professionals	32%	29%	32%	26%	69%	57%
2 Suburbanites and Peri-Urbanites	27%	28%	27%	18%	66%	57%
3 Multicultural and Educated Urbanites	14%	21%	21%	6%	50%	38%
4 Low-Skilled Migrant and Student Communities	16%	23%	19%	6%	41%	39%
5 Ethnically Diverse Suburban Professionals	26%	28%	31%	23%	68%	54%
6 Baseline UK	19%	25%	19%	6%	53%	47%
7 Semi- and Un-Skilled Workforce	22%	25%	24%	10%	58%	47%
8 Legacy Communities	17%	23%	10%	5%	53%	31%

Figure 7: Plea rates by prosecutor and Output Area Classification 2021, based on May to October 2023 ATCM case receipts as of January 2024 (Essex cases cover Jul to Oct due to timing of the switch to ATCM).

These findings are consistent with earlier behavioural insight into defendants’ experience of the SJPN. This research in 2020 led to a redesigned SJPN with clearer language and an improvement in both defendant engagement and digital take-up in the pilot areas. While the redesigned SJPN provided an improved baseline level of performance for ATCM cases the latest findings suggest there is still scope to improve access to justice.   

Defendant engagement is also important to give prosecutors an opportunity to review any mitigations raised and to withdraw the case if they believe it is no longer in the public interest to pursue it. There has been media and public concern about vulnerable defendants being prosecuted and examples of defendants pleading guilty while also indicating mitigations related to mental health or other serious conditions. Under the current arrangements: a dedicated system is in place for TVL and DVLA cases, so that magistrates can refer a case back to prosecutors if mitigations raise questions about whether it the prosecution in the public interest or should be withdrawn; and magistrates can also give an absolute or conditional discharge to account for any mitigations they are informed of. 

Next steps for HMCTS:

Access to justice would be improved via higher rates of defendant engagement, especially among defendants from lower income backgrounds. This is the main topic to be investigated further following this assessment and we plan to review both qualitative and quantitative sources of evidence with prosecutors to consider opportunities to improve engagement.

Technical issues with Online Plea:

Technical issues with Online Plea can frustrate defendants that try to engage with their case. When defendants enter their details, they can be presented with an error message or told that their details are not found on the system. This can be a barrier to access as defendants then need to either: try again later; resort to the paper channel; phone for support; or abandon their attempt to make a plea. This situation is especially problematic for any defendant that attempts to plead close to the deadline for their case.

DVLA defendants encountered this issue at scale in late 2022 and early 2023 because of technical system issues that were not resolved until mid-April 2023. In October and November 2022, around 15% of DVLA defendants made their plea online but this proportion dropped to as low as 7% for January and February 2023, as shown in Figure 8. In this example it appears that most defendants resorted to the paper form, but the issue may also have caused a temporary drop in the overall plea rate (the apparent dip in the plea rate in Dec and Jan).

Receipt month	DVLA receipts	Plea %	Online Plea %	Postal Plea %
Sep 2022	13,612	22.6%	14.9%	7.7%
Oct 2022	13,598	22.3%	15.0%	7.2%
Nov 2022	12,604	20.2%	14.9%	5.4%
Dec 2022	11,133	17.5%	8.5%	9.0%
Jan 2023	12,733	18.2%	6.7%	11.5%
Feb 2023	12,097	20.4%	7.3%	13.1%
Mar 2023	15,283	21.5%	9.1%	12.3%
Apr 2023	13,810	23.2%	15.0%	8.3%
May 2023	15,782	20.3%	13.6%	6.8%
Jun 2023	15,854	20.4%	13.6%	6.9%

Figure 8: Plea rates and plea rates by channel for DVLA cases by receipt month.

There is also evidence that technical issues with Online Plea continue to be encountered at a smaller scale. Feedback from staff mentions defendants being frustrated when they enter their details only for their case not to be found on the system. Staff specifically mentioned issues with SJPNs being sent out before the system was able to accept those details via Online Plea.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The DVLA example from 2023 demonstrates the importance of regular system monitoring so that issues can be identified quickly and resolved as soon as possible. This monitoring has now been improved so that both web analytics and user feedback are reviewed regularly.

The smaller scale examples highlight the importance of monitoring defendant feedback via calls and other sources so that minor frictions in processes can be removed.

Slow processing of police cases without a plea:

Analysis of case receipts from August to October 2023 (inclusive) shows that police cases can take a long time to be disposed of when the defendant does not make a plea. This appears to have been an issue for cases prosecuted by both Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police Force and Essex Police Force. This has the potential to create access issues, especially for defendants that change address between their case starting and it being disposed of.

There is no evidence of any equivalent issue for national prosecutors. Inevitably, cases without a plea still take longer to be disposed of, as these cases cannot be processed until the plea deadline has passed. But cases under these prosecutors do not appear to show any unnecessary delays in case processing.

Criminal court case information on outcomes and timeliness is currently undergoing further quality assurance so full details of case timings are not presented here.

Next steps for HMCTS:

The service was already aware of this issue before the completion of this assessment. The differences between police and non-police prosecutors are the result of separate work allocation processes for the two groups and known issues with the system for police cases.

Lessons are being learnt from the processing of Hampshire and Essex cases to make improvements for the broader set of police forces as they switch to ATCM. This issue also highlights the importance of monitoring performance by prosecutor and of using performance metrics more nuanced than average case timeliness.

4. Updates on previous assessments

4.1 Introduction:

We previously published a summary of the findings of the first four completed Access to Justice (A2J) assessments in probate, divorce, social security and child support (SSCS) tribunal, and online civil money claims (OCMC) services. Where potential A2J barriers were identified, we highlighted the plans to understand the root causes of the barriers and how we would reduce them. The following section provides updates on these actions, where we think they will be of interest to a public audience.  

4.2 Probate:

User representation

Finding from 2023 publication: A core user need of the reformed probate service is for users to be reassured that they can apply for probate without the need for expensive professional help. The data led to a hypothesis that users are over-reliant on solicitors- 60% across all cases and 40% for low value estates below £50,000.  We provided additional signposting to relevant external advice, which clarifies when users may or may not need the expertise offered by a solicitor. This change along with other wider changes to Inheritance tax and fees resulted in an improvement in A2J demonstrated by the percentage of users with small estates making applications as litigants in person increasing from around 60% to 75%.

Progress to date

As described in the 2023 publication we continue to regularly monitor this data. This improvement in A2J has continued and looks to be settling down to around 70-75% of users with small estates making applications as litigants in person.

Timeliness and stops by protected characteristic

Finding from 2023 publication: Cases for ethnic minority users take longer and are stopped more often than cases for white users. Additional analysis highlighted that this was being driven by a range of issues including the condition of the will, and the consistent use of names in documents.

Progress to date

We have and are continuing to update the service with the aim of reducing stops in probate cases. To resolve the issues around will condition, we have redesigned the questions that users are asked to capture information about the condition of the will to make it easier for users to submit documents that meet the necessary criteria. The designs went live in January 2023.

Additionally, we are re-designing how we capture information on the name of the deceased and any variations to it to reduce name related stops in the service, which disproportionately affected ethnic minority applicants.

Early indications suggest that the proportion of ethnic minority users experiencing a stop to their case is reducing compared to white users, however we cannot be confident in this finding until more cases have completed in early 2025.

Re-issuing and withdrawals

Finding from 2023 publication: We identified that around 2% of grants are reissued and 1% of grants are withdrawn. Both re-issues and withdrawals are potential access to justice issues and we set a limit for both of 3% at which point an analytical deep dive would be triggered.

Progress to date

We have continued to monitor the data on re-issues and withdrawals and because the proportions have remained relatively high at around 2% or more for both we have recently started additional research. This research will aim to understand the underlying reasons why probate applications are withdrawn and why grants are re-issued and whether any access to justice barriers are present. If barriers are identified, the relevant service fixes will be designed and implemented. This research will be complete and any actions recommended by the end of 2024.

Contact, complaints and user experience

Finding from 2023 publication: Contact (complaints, emails and calls) was higher and user satisfaction was lower than expected and was being driven by applicants seeking an update on the progress of their case, which was exacerbated by delays in the service and an increasing backlog of older, outstanding cases. So, we introduced a Citizen’s Hub, where applicants can log in to get updates on their case, and changing messaging to let users known that cases will take around 16 weeks, rather than 8 weeks as stated in the original messaging. We also changed operational processes to target the backlog of older cases.

Progress to date

We recently reviewed the Citizen Hub and continue to monitor contact and user satisfaction data. The findings showed that the Citizen Hub is being well used and has contributed to a reduction in users contacting HMCTS about an update on their case. For example, the percentage of emails relating to a status update dropped from 50% to 27% after the launch of the Citizen Hub in April 2023.

Additionally, there has been an improvement in user satisfaction around contact, improving from around 60% to 65%. However, the review also highlighted that users are still needing to contact HMCTS if their case is stopped. To address this problem, we are going to expand the Citizen Hub, so applicants can get an update on a stopped case and respond to the requests for additional information online.

4.3 Divorce:

Contact

Finding from 2023 publication: Users were finding it difficult to get in touch with HMCTS to get status updates on their case, and guidance on the application process. We committed to work in the following areas:

• Citizens Hub: Develop and extend the current Citizens Hub to include the post-submission pre-issue stage of the divorce process
• Guidance: Publish improved guidance detailing the requirements for uploading documents, to improve the quality of uploads
• Contact: To further understand the reasons why applicants and respondents are calling at the Acknowledgement of Service (AOS) stage we committed to a research project to understand calls made by users.

Progress to date

Citizens Hub: We have developed the design for the extension to the current Citizens Hub and expect that this will be rolled out later this year. 

Guidance: We published updated guidance in December last year detailing the requirements for uploading documents. We conducted follow up analysis at the beginning of 2024 to see if it was an effective change and found that a sample of recent divorce applications stopped at the pre-issue stage were 20% less likely to be stopped due to issues with the quality of the documents uploaded, relative to an equivalent sample in May 2023, before the guidance was updated.

Contact: The research identified several reasons why users were calling us at the AOS stage. This included respondents encountering issues accessing the online portal to respond to the Divorce. As a result, staff were given a refresh on what to do to support users when they call about these issues, and the guidance documents staff use were updated to reflect the options available to users. In addition to this, the links where users access the portal on GOV.UK were rearranged (previously users were being offered the Old Divorce Law link first, resulting in access issues as respondents were attempting to access the incorrect system). The new law links are now more prominent, making it easier for users to access the correct system to respond to their divorce, with the aim to reduce some of the access issues identified. A project has also started which is exploring the notifications users are sent and the effectiveness of these.

Timeliness and outcome by protected characteristics**

Finding from 2023 assessment:

Differences in timeliness and outcomes for some divorce applicants, including those from an ethnic minority or where English or Welsh was not their main language were identified. Additional analysis provided insight into the reasons for these differences, which include:

• Uploading certified translations of marriage certificates
• How HMCTS handle cultural naming customs
• Multiple dates listed on marriage certificates
• Location of marriage
• Serving respondents
• Providing official documentation

Progress to date

We are progressing with the service fixes to address these issues. For example, to resolve issues regarding uploading certified translations we have redesigned the part of the application journey where users are asked to provide a certified translation. This is to make it clearer when a certified translation is necessary and what the requirements around certified translations are. We are currently in the final stages of finalising this content.

Once we have the new content in place, we will then be exploring the other issues, to further understand the root causes of the issues and the necessary service fixes required.  

4.4 Social Security and Child Support (SSCS):

Overall clearance times

Finding from 2023 publication: HMCTS was not meeting the aim of clearing 75% of SSCS cases within 16 weeks, with paper cases taking longer to clear, and that accommodation issues were in part driving postponements and adjournments of hearings.

Progress to date

To reduce the frequency of postponements and adjournments we reissued guidance to processing centres on how to report ‘accommodation issues’ as they can cause hearings to be postponed or adjourned (e.g., lack of technical equipment in a particular venue preventing a remote hearing), so staff are now routinely recording accommodation issues, which enables the service to deliver specific actions to rectify these. Additionally, we are conducting a research project to strengthen our understanding of why cases are postponed and adjourned in this service which will identify ways this can be improved.

Clearance times by region and protected characteristics

Finding from 2023 publication: We found that there were differences in clearance times by protected characteristics. For example, cases of those from an ethnic minority group and those whose main language was not English or Welsh took longer than appeals from white users and those whose main language was English or Welsh. These differences could to some extent be explained by region (i.e. some groups are more likely to reside in particular parts of the country where cases take longer). However, differences were still evident even when controlling for region. We committed to an investigation to understand the root causes of the disparities by protected characteristics.

Progress to date

Analysis is currently underway investigating a subset of cases in one London venue to understand what is driving the disparities by ethnicity. It is expected that this research will be complete and any actions recommended by the end of 2024.

4.5 Online Civil Money Claims (OCMC):

Defendant Engagement

Finding from 2023 publication: We found that levels of defendant engagement in OCMC cases was consistently low, but it was unclear why so many defendants did not respond to the claim. We committed to conducting primary research with engaged and unengaged defendants of money claims.

Progress to date

Consistent levels of defendant engagement were seen with OCMC, in the 12 months to March 2024 37% of OCMC claims were defended, during the same time period 13% of small value claims were defended on non-reform systems (MCOL, bulk and paper). These figures cannot be directly compared, as OCMC is available for certain cases, but the figures provide context on overall defendant engagement.

This primary research conducted included in depth interviews with defendants, including those who did not engage with their money claim, analysis to understand engagement and the demographic characteristics of defendants, and analysis of a sample of calls made to the Court & Tribunal Service Centre (CTSC) from defendants to understand any barriers to engagement.

Four key barriers to engagement were identified:

• Defendants had no means to pay their debts, so did not feel there was any point in engaging with the process.
• Some defendants explained that they were experiencing major life events that took priority over engaging with the dispute, and by the time they had the headspace to engage the deadline had passed.
• Sometimes defendants do not receive any paperwork from HMCTS until they receive the judgement against them.
• In some instances, defendants expected the dispute to ‘go away’ as they frequently saw threats of court action from creditors but assumed that these were only threats.

We are exploring how best to support users to overcome these barriers, including drawing on successful interventions from other government departments. This includes reviewing communications users receive from HMCTS to ensure they are as clear and simple as possible, they are personalised so users are aware they are not generic communications, and the benefits of engaging with their case is highlighted. Additionally, to support users who are experiencing financial hardship, we will work with external partners to ensure users are consistently signposted to the most appropriate organisation.

Timeliness by protected characteristics

Finding from 2023 publication: Variations in timeliness to first full hearing by ethnicity were identified in OCMC, we committed to additional analysis to further understand the contextual factors driving the differences.

Progress to date

Further analysis of protected characteristics and Management Information (MI) data highlighted that the variations in timeliness to first full hearing by ethnicity was being driven by court level differences. When all courts were ranked by the average number of days taken to reach a first full hearing 8 in 10 of the bottom 20% were in London or the South East of England. Additionally, these regions have populations with a greater proportion of people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Therefore, ethnic minority uses are disproportionately affected by the court level and regional timeliness variations. These court level differences are known issues but the analysis of impact on ethnicity has helped to prioritise the need to reduce them.

To do this a working group involving judges and HMCTS has been created to understand and try to resolve the court level variations which in turn would improve timeliness differences by ethnicity.

Issues with available guidance

Finding from 2023 publication: There was evidence which suggested that the current available guidance on GOV.UK could be improved. There was a lack of specific guidance around fees, with many users calling HMCTS with a query for advice that cannot be easily located on GOV.UK. So, we committed to improve the content and signposting of ‘how-to’ guidance pages on GOV.UK.

Progress to date

We reviewed the available guidance on GOV.UK, focusing on whether users were being correctly signposted to the fees section prior to starting their claim. Digital Analytics indicated that around 30% of users viewing the guidance do not look at the ‘fees’ section before beginning their claim. Based on this, it was understood that when users are finalising their claim and taken to the payment screen, they were not prepared or expecting to have to pay at this point. To understand this further, we completed a project which utilised CTSC call listening, speech analytics, additional web analytics and user feedback analysis. The focus of this was exploring whether users were calling around payments and fees, to investigate what proportion of calls mentioned a lack of awareness around fees within the service. This project was unable to identify any conclusive findings and suggests that the reason for users finishing their application but not submitting or paying is being driven by something else.  

To explore the size and impact of this issue further, we are now completing additional analysis of OCMC complaints, to understand how many are about fees. If it is identified that fees are a significant contributor to OCMC complaints, we will undertake primary research with OCMC users to understand the issues further.

Annex A

A2J Framework: The access to justice assessment consists of a series of questions under each of the four elements of the definition. The following A2J questions are explored where relevant for each service:

Access to the formal legal system

• Is the volume and profile of users broadly what we would expect?
• Is there any evidence that certain users may be excluded?
• Is the service completed accurately?
• What is the cost and effort involved with accessing the service?
• What are the difficulties for users seeking to access the service?

Access to a fair and effective hearing

• How many users reach the hearing stage? What types of people and claims drop out of the process prior to hearing?
• How well do users engage in the process?
• Do users engage with external sources of help and support to navigate the process?
• Is the process fair and what is the user experience?

Access to a decision

• How long does it take to secure a decision?
• What types of users and cases secure a decision?
• What types of decision do they secure?
• What is the user experience of accessing a decision?

Access to a remedy

• What proportion of users who file a claim go on to secure the remedy?
• Are different types of users more or less likely to secure the remedy than others?
• How long does it take from the time a user secures a decision to the time they secure a remedy?
• What is the user experience of accessing a remedy?

Annex B

Terms	Definition
Adjournment	When a hearing does not proceed on the day.
Allowed	If an appellant receives a positive appeal outcome (i.e., the Home Office loses the appeal), the appeal is referred to as having been allowed.
Case Disposals	This is the record made by HMCTS when a case concludes.
Common Platform	This is a digital case management system. It helps users manage and share criminal case information more effectively. This includes HMCTS staff, the judiciary and professional court users such as defence lawyers and the Crown Prosecution Service.
Court & Tribunal Service Centre (CTSC)	CTSCs support people with cases that are going through the justice system. Staff in CTSCs process cases, issue orders, answer queries from the public and support virtual hearings.
Digital Completion Rate	This is the number of digital transactions that your users complete as a percentage of all digital transactions that your eligible users start, i.e., if a user does not pass eligibility, they’re not included in the completion rate.
Digital Support Service	This service offers free support for users who are unable to, or struggle getting online. With this support, users can access the courts and tribunals digitally.
Digital Take-up Rate	This is the percentage of people using government services online in relation to other channels, for example paper.
Legacy cases	This refers to cases that have been submitted under the old system which existed before Reform.
Online case	This refers to cases that are submitted through the reformed digital channels.
Outcome	This refers to the conclusion of the case.
Paper or offline case	This refers to cases that are submitted through non-digital routes. This can include things like posting a paper form to the court or taking it to a local court.