A public-interest initiative exploring access to justice through research, technology, and human-centred support.
Research: Administrative Reliability and Access to Justice
New Research Exposes Administrative Barriers Facing Litigants in Person
Blind Justice has published new research documenting systemic administrative failures in England and Wales's civil courts – failures that prevent unrepresented litigants from having their cases properly considered. To read the full report click the image.
The Research
Our report examines 20 anonymised cases across County Court, High Court, and Employment Tribunal proceedings between January 2024 and January 2026. The findings reveal a pattern of administrative breakdown affecting the most basic elements of court procedure.
What We're Calling For
Practical, implementable reforms: universal logging of filings, transparent audit trails, mandatory verification that submissions have been considered, and accountability when errors occur.
'When mandatory procedural safeguards aren't actioned at the administrative level, cases are decided without the material judges are required to consider. That's not a judicial failing – it's an administrative one. And it's fixable.'
Edward Romain, Founder & Executive Director
About Blind Justice
Blind Justice is a UK-based Community Interest Company focused on access to justice and institutional accountability.
It responds to the growing number of people who must navigate legal and regulatory systems without affordable access to representation, often in conditions of procedural complexity and imbalance of power.
Blind Justice combines research, carefully constrained digital tools, and human-centred support to help individuals understand legal processes and to generate evidence about how those systems operate in practice.
Learning from this work is used to identify systemic barriers, highlight procedural unfairness, and contribute to evidence-based justice system reform.
Blind Justice C.I.C is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or legal representation.
Our Approach
Access to justice is not a single problem with a single solution.
Blind Justice recognises that individuals navigating the civil justice system without representation face multiple, overlapping barriers. Procedural complexity, informational imbalance, and psychological strain interact in ways that can undermine fairness, decision-making, and outcomes.
Our approach reflects this reality. Blind Justice operates through three distinct but connected pillars, each addressing a different aspect of the access to justice challenge. None is sufficient alone. Together, they support understanding, steadiness, and evidence-based reform.
Our Three Pillars
THEMIS
THEMIS is the research and policy pillar of Blind Justice.
Its purpose is to understand how legal and regulatory systems operate in practice, particularly for individuals without legal representation. THEMIS focuses on access to justice, procedural fairness, and institutional accountability.
Work under THEMIS examines recurring barriers such as procedural opacity, inconsistent application of rules, and structural disadvantages faced by litigants in person. It draws on lived experience, anonymised case analysis, and engagement with affected individuals.
THEMIS does not advocate for outcomes in individual cases. Its focus is systemic: identifying patterns, documenting failure points, and contributing to the evidence base for justice system reform.
AEGIS
AEGIS is a carefully constrained AI system designed to support procedural understanding for litigants in person.
It helps individuals understand legal concepts and processes in plain English, interpret documents they have received, and prepare structured legal materials using recognised formats. AEGIS is jurisdiction-limited to England and Wales.
The system is designed to operate within strict safeguards and to be honest about uncertainty and limitation. Where information cannot be verified, AEGIS states this clearly. Where matters fall outside its scope, it declines to respond.
AEGIS does not provide legal advice. It does not assess case strength. It does not predict outcomes. It does not substitute for professional judgement. These limits are explicit and enforced.
PSYCHE
PSYCHE addresses the psychological and emotional impact of civil litigation.
Legal disputes can involve prolonged uncertainty, isolation, adversarial pressure, and loss of confidence. These factors can affect judgement, resilience, and the ability to engage effectively with legal processes.
PSYCHE provides grounding, reflection, and emotional containment for individuals navigating the civil justice system. It recognises strain without pathologising it, and supports steadiness rather than intervention.
PSYCHE is not therapy. It is not diagnosis. It is not mental health treatment. It does not replace clinicians or mental health professionals. PSYCHE addresses the psychological impact of litigation, not mental illness.
Research and Evidence
Blind Justice conducts evidence-led research into the systemic barriers faced by litigants in person and unrepresented individuals within court and regulatory systems.
Our work draws on anonymised composite analysis of real cases, lived experience, and engagement with affected individuals to examine how administrative processes and procedural rules operate in practice where legal representation is unavailable.
This research has identified recurring administrative failures, procedural unfairness, and accountability gaps that affect access to justice. Its focus is not individual case outcomes, but the structural conditions that shape fairness, reliability, and institutional accountability.
In January 2026, Blind Justice submitted a substantive research report to the Ministry of Justice and the House of Commons Justice Committee. The report has been shared with the Chair of the Committee and is being considered as written evidence as part of parliamentary scrutiny of court administration.
The work has also prompted engagement from the legal profession and legal media, including coverage by Legal Futures.
Related coverage
Complex court processes “shut out litigants in person”
Legal Futures
Concerns over barriers in the UK justice system raised at highest levels of government
The Argus