Digital Justice: When Online Courts Risk Excluding Disabled People

Written by Editor

Disclaimer: This article is for general information and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court procedures, accessibility arrangements and available remedies may differ according to the jurisdiction, type of proceedings and individual circumstances. Anyone experiencing barriers to participating in legal proceedings should contact the relevant court or tribunal, request appropriate accommodations and, where necessary, seek advice from a qualified legal professional.

Courts Moving Online Raise Accessibility Concerns Under Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Digital technology has transformed how people communicate, conduct business and access public services. Courts and tribunals are increasingly adopting online applications, electronic case files, digital evidence portals, video hearings, telephone hearings and automated case-management systems.

When designed inclusively, these services can make justice faster, more convenient and less physically demanding. However, digitalisation can also create new barriers for disabled people, particularly when online processes replace rather than supplement accessible face-to-face, telephone and paper-based options.

Access to justice is not achieved simply because a court website exists or because a person has been sent a video-hearing link. The individual must be able to understand the proceedings, communicate effectively, review the evidence, receive appropriate support and participate on an equal basis with others.

What Is the Digitalisation of Justice?

The digitalisation of justice refers to the introduction of technology throughout the legal process. It may include:

Submitting claims and appeals through online portals;
Paying court fees electronically;
Receiving court documents by email;
Uploading statements, photographs and other evidence;
Attending hearings through video or telephone platforms;
Accessing digital case files;
Communicating with court staff through online accounts;
Using electronic bundles instead of printed documents;
Remote interpretation, captioning or intermediary support; and
Using automated systems to organise, prioritise or manage cases.

In England and Wales, the HM Courts and Tribunals Service Reform Programme introduced a range of digital services intended to make the justice system more accessible, manageable and cost-effective. The programme formally closed in March 2025, although evaluation and further development continue. A Ministry of Justice evaluation published in March 2026 found meaningful improvements in convenience and flexibility, while also identifying continuing concerns about digital exclusion, technical reliability, complicated guidance, incomplete digital processes and the suitability of online services for complex or sensitive legal matters.

What Does CRPD Article 13 Require?

Article 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, commonly known as the CRPD or UNCRPD, requires States Parties to ensure effective access to justice for disabled people on an equal basis with others.

This includes providing procedural and age-appropriate accommodations so that disabled people can participate effectively in all legal proceedings. The protection applies not only to defendants or claimants, but also to witnesses, victims, applicants, respondents, jurors and others involved directly or indirectly in the justice system. Article 13 also requires appropriate training for people working in the administration of justice, including police and prison staff.

The wording is important. Article 13 refers to effective access, meaning that access must work in practice rather than exist only in theory. A disabled person has not received equal access merely because they were technically permitted to join a hearing when the format prevented them from understanding, communicating or presenting their case.

The United Nations’ International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities state that court facilities and services should be universally accessible, information should be provided in timely and accessible formats, and disabled people should receive the support and procedural accommodations necessary to guarantee due process. At international level, procedural accommodations are distinguished from ordinary reasonable accommodations because they are not limited by the concept of a disproportionate or undue burden.

The Position in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom ratified the CRPD in 2009 and therefore accepted an international responsibility to protect and promote the rights contained within it. However, the Convention has not been fully incorporated into UK domestic law, meaning that Article 13 does not generally operate as a standalone cause of action in the same way as an Act of Parliament. Its principles remain important when developing policy, scrutinising public services and interpreting the rights of disabled people.

Domestic protections may also arise under the Equality Act 2010. The Act places duties on service providers and those exercising public functions to make reasonable adjustments where disabled people would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage. HMCTS states that court and tribunal users may request reasonable adjustments by telephone, in person or in writing and should explain how their disability affects them and what support they require.

Access to justice also connects with the broader right to a fair hearing. A procedure may be available in principle but still be unfair if a participant cannot understand the case, communicate privately with their legal representative, examine evidence or respond effectively.

How Digital Courts Can Improve Accessibility

Digital justice should not automatically be viewed as harmful. For some disabled people, attending remotely may remove serious physical, psychological and financial barriers.

Potential benefits include:

Avoiding inaccessible court buildings;
Reducing travel for people with mobility impairments or chronic pain;
Conserving energy for people living with fatigue;
Allowing participation from a familiar environment;
Reducing the distress of being physically close to an opposing party;
Enabling easier access to certain communication technologies;
Reducing travel and childcare costs;
Allowing documents to be enlarged or read using assistive software; and
Helping people who cannot safely leave their homes.

An HMCTS evaluation found that some public users valued the convenience and reduced costs of remote hearings, while some participants felt less anxious because they did not have to be in the same room as someone with whom they were in conflict. Nevertheless, the evaluation also recommended greater support for vulnerable users and better awareness of the assistance available.

The issue is therefore not whether technology should be used, but whether it is being used with sufficient flexibility, accessibility and human oversight.

Principal Accessibility Concerns

1. Digital Exclusion

Not everyone has a reliable computer, smartphone, broadband connection, private room, webcam or microphone. Some people rely on limited mobile data, shared devices or outdated technology.

Digital exclusion can be connected to disability, age, poverty, homelessness, rural isolation, language barriers or limited digital experience. A person may understand how to send an email but still be unable to navigate a complicated evidence portal, convert documents into an accepted format or troubleshoot a failed video connection.

HMCTS has recognised that digital disadvantage may involve a lack of skills, internet access or suitable hardware and that these factors require further investigation when determining the future use of remote hearings.

2. Inaccessible Websites and Documents

A portal may be unusable for someone who relies on a screen reader, keyboard navigation, voice-control software or magnification. Scanned documents may appear visually clear but contain no readable text for assistive technology.

Other barriers may include:

Poorly labelled form fields;
Inaccessible CAPTCHA tests;
Short automatic time-outs;
Documents that cannot be enlarged;
Colour combinations with insufficient contrast;
Instructions written in unnecessarily complicated legal language;
Videos without captions;
Audio content without transcripts; and
Evidence bundles that cannot be navigated easily.

Accessibility must cover the entire digital journey. An accessible homepage is of little value when the application form, payment system, uploaded evidence or hearing platform is inaccessible.

3. Communication and Cognitive Barriers

Video hearings can make communication more difficult for people with learning disabilities, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, brain injuries, memory problems, dementia, mental health conditions or other cognitive impairments.

A participant may struggle to identify who is speaking, understand when they are expected to respond, process rapid legal language or recognise subtle changes in tone. Delays in video or sound can make these difficulties worse.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission found that video hearings may significantly impede communication and understanding for some disabled defendants, including people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. It warned that increased digitalisation could leave some disabled people less able to understand proceedings and communicate than they would be in person.

4. Deaf and Hearing-Impaired Participants

A deaf or hard-of-hearing person may need a British Sign Language interpreter, speech-to-text reporting, hearing-loop technology, captions or additional time.

Automated captions are not always sufficiently accurate for complex legal terminology, names, dates or evidence. A person may also be unable to watch an interpreter, observe the judge and read documents simultaneously on a small screen.

Any interpreter must be able to see and hear all relevant participants clearly. The system should also allow sufficient time for interpretation before another person begins speaking.

5. Blind and Visually Impaired Participants

Blind or visually impaired users may encounter inaccessible evidence bundles, photographs without descriptions, poorly structured documents or platforms that do not work with screen readers.

During a remote hearing, statements such as “look at the document on screen” or “the relevant paragraph is highlighted” may exclude a participant who has not been given an accessible copy or an adequate verbal description.

6. Mental Health, PTSD and Anxiety

Remote participation can reduce anxiety for some people, but it may increase it for others. Technical problems, unfamiliar interfaces, sudden disconnections or uncertainty about who is present can cause distress.

A person with post-traumatic stress disorder may need advance information about the hearing, scheduled breaks, permission to keep their camera off temporarily, a support person or protection from seeing an alleged abuser on screen.

People living with anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder or panic disorders may also require clear written instructions, predictable arrangements and communication by an accessible method rather than unexpected telephone calls.

7. Lack of Privacy

Not everyone has a safe and confidential place from which to attend a remote hearing. A person may be living with an abusive partner, sharing temporary accommodation, residing in a care setting or relying on a public library.

Confidential communication with a solicitor may be difficult if the platform does not provide a secure private consultation room. A vulnerable person may also be unable to speak honestly when another individual is within hearing distance.

8. Technical Failure and Procedural Consequences

A frozen screen, failed upload or lost internet connection should not be mistaken for non-compliance, unwillingness to participate or disrespect for the court.

Technical failures can become serious when they lead to:

missed deadlines;
evidence not being considered;
a party being treated as absent;
hearings proceeding without meaningful participation;
additional costs;
adjournments; or
decisions being made without the person being heard.

The 2026 Ministry of Justice evaluation recorded problems locating documents within digital systems, including incidents that contributed to adjournments. It also found that digital channels had not necessarily removed access barriers for vulnerable users.

9. Litigants in Person

People without a solicitor may be particularly disadvantaged by digital processes. They may not understand legal terminology, evidential rules, filing requirements or how to prepare an electronic court bundle.

Digital self-service must not be confused with legal understanding. A person may be capable of completing an online form but unaware that they have selected the wrong procedure, omitted important evidence or misunderstood the legal test.

The Ministry of Justice evaluation reported concerns that litigants in person could experience unequal access to evidence, while users generally benefited from clear guidance, regular updates, well-signposted support and access to legal advice or representation.

10. Failure to Identify Disability-Related Needs

Many impairments are invisible. A person may not describe themselves as vulnerable or may not know that adjustments are available.

Court systems should not rely solely on people repeatedly disclosing sensitive medical information. There should be clear opportunities to identify communication, sensory, mobility, cognitive and psychological needs, with consent-based processes for recording agreed accommodations.

What Should an Accessible Digital Justice System Provide?

A rights-based system should offer flexibility rather than imposing one method on everyone.

Essential protections should include:

A meaningful choice between online, telephone, paper-based and in-person procedures;
Accessible websites, forms and electronic evidence;
Compatibility with screen readers, magnification and voice-control software;
Large print, Braille, audio and Easy Read information;
British Sign Language interpretation, captions and transcripts;
Additional time to read, process information and respond;
Scheduled breaks;
Intermediaries, communication specialists and support persons;
Pre-hearing technology checks;
Confidential communication with legal representatives;
Accessible methods for reporting technical problems;
Human assistance with completing digital forms;
Protection against penalties caused by genuine technical failure;
Alternative arrangements where remote participation prevents effective engagement;
Disability-awareness training for judges, lawyers, court staff and technical support teams; and
Consultation with disabled people and Disabled People’s Organisations when systems are designed and evaluated.

The most recent HMCTS Vulnerability Action Plan states that vulnerable users should be able to participate without disadvantage or discrimination and identifies accessible services, improved information and support as continuing priorities.

Online or In Person Should Be Decided Individually

A remote hearing may be the most accessible choice for one person and completely unsuitable for another. Decisions should therefore be based on the individual, the nature of the disability, the complexity of the evidence, the seriousness of the case and the support available.

No one should be compelled to attend in person where remote participation would be a reasonable and effective accommodation. Equally, a disabled person should not be forced into a remote hearing merely because the court regards digital participation as cheaper or administratively convenient.

The Ministry of Justice’s 2026 findings emphasised the importance of retaining offline options to support fairness and accessibility and concluded that digital reform would require continued investment in inclusive design and user support to achieve its full potential.

Requesting Adjustments

A disabled court or tribunal user should notify the relevant court as early as possible and explain:

how their disability affects their participation;
which part of the procedure presents a barrier;
what accommodation or alternative arrangement is required;
whether accessible documents or communication support are needed;
whether a remote, hybrid or in-person hearing would be more suitable; and
what may happen if the adjustment is not provided.

Where possible, requests should be made in writing and written confirmation of the agreed arrangements should be retained. Medical evidence may sometimes be helpful, but the focus should remain on the practical barrier and the support required rather than merely on the name of a diagnosis.

Where an accommodation is refused or ignored, the person may consider asking for the decision to be reconsidered, raising the matter with the judge, using the relevant complaints procedure or obtaining independent legal advice.

Digital Justice Must Remain Human Justice

Technology should be a tool for delivering justice, not a gatekeeper that determines who can reach it.

A modern justice system cannot be described as accessible when disabled people are unable to read its documents, operate its platforms, communicate with the court or understand the proceedings. Nor is a process fair when a person’s ability to participate depends on owning expensive equipment, having fast broadband or being able to navigate complicated legal systems without assistance.

CRPD Article 13 requires effective and equal participation. This means digital reform must be designed around human diversity from the beginning, rather than requiring disabled people to fight for solutions after inaccessible systems have already been introduced.

The objective should not be a digital-only court system. It should be an inclusive justice system in which technology expands people’s choices, preserves procedural fairness and removes barriers without creating new ones.