Jérémy Boulanger-Bonnelly, Assistant Professor, McGill University Faculty of Law
Person-centred justice (or “people-centred justice”) is gaining popularity in the global access to justice discourse. Yet its theoretical underpinnings remain poorly defined. While some scholars have sought to develop a more precise definition in recent years, much work remains to understand the concept’s contours and implications better. Doing so is essential if researchers and policymakers are to share a common language and maintain synergy between their initiatives.
One way to better define person-centred justice is to compare it to other concepts that have shaped access to justice discourses in the past. Doing so is vital to avoid concept proliferation—i.e., the creation of new concepts where existing ones are sufficient—and to
ensure that we do not reinvent the wheel and instead build on existing research and
initiatives where appropriate.
This paper aims to contribute to that exercise by comparing the concepts of “participatory justice” and “person-centred justice”. Participatory justice has existed for decades but gained momentum in the 1980s when it served as a theoretical basis for alternative dispute resolution models. Even today, this concept underpins several new access-to-justice initiatives. It is, therefore, useful to identify how it differs or not from person-centred justice and what the latter concept may add to the earlier one. To do so, this paper engages in a reflexive thematic analysis of the literature discussing these two concepts to identify their similarities and differences. The main conclusion is that person-centred justice, as currently explained in the literature, does not significantly differ from participatory justice and that we would do better to refer to that latter concept where appropriate.
The paper begins with a brief description of concept proliferation and the importance of defining concepts as precisely as possible. Its second part briefly reviews a prior thematic analysis of person-centred justice. Building on that analysis, the third part provides a
thematic analysis of participatory justice and draws parallels between this concept and person-centred justice. Lastly, the paper concludes with a call to anchor person-centred justice within the well-established literature on participatory justice.
Albert Currie, Canadian Forum on Civil Justice
Providing people-centered justice has to start where access to justice begins, at the beginning of the access to justice process. That is going out to where people live or spend much of their time and providing them in their own place, at times and places that maximize convenient accessibility. One of the legacy findings from the contemporary body of legal problems research is that many people do not take appropriate action by seeking authoritative advice to resolve the legal problems they are experiencing.
This paper and presentation will show how the mobile rural law van and fixed-location winter venues have achieved effective outreach, providing people-centered justice and a high degree of accessibility that reaches the people who do not appear at the front door of a legal clinic asking for help. People-centered or holistic justice is important at the direct service level. Qualitative data will demonstrate the holistic character of the service provided at the summer and winter “van”. There is a social aspect to people-centricity. Observations suggest that the summer and winter outreach fit well into the rural character of the communities being served. Along with the high level of accessibility offered by the Law Van, fitting into the rural cultural of the communities is a strong foundation for the success and the sustainability of the project.
Nicki Lees, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Australia
Overview of the session:
Maurice Blackburn recently launched a project titled “Exhibit AI.” This project took the witness statements (as filed in Court) of 35 asylum seekers/refugees who had been detained in Australia’s offshore immigration centres on Nauru or Manus Island, and turned their words into AI images. The website for the project is available here: www.exhibitai.com.au.
The feedback from the refugees who shared their stories through the use of AI images was that they found the process to provide a sense of accountability and justice. There were also many ethical and other considerations that were navigated during course of this project, in partnership with the refugees themselves.
This session aims to share the benefits of using AI to share client stories, the restorative justice benefits of this, how this enhances access to justice and when it might be appropriate to use AI in this way. The session will explore lessons learnt from the project and the ethical questions for other practitioners to consider if doing similar work.
Key findings and lessons to share:
The global conversation around AI often centres on the risks of using AI. However, there are many positive and effectives uses of AI in the social justice space. However, this needs to be done in a considered and well thought out way.
This session aims to create a unique space for legal practitioners to reflect on the positive ways in which they can share clients’ stories and lived experiences using AI, and how this fits in within the wider civil society and social context.
This conversation can occur within the framework of concrete discussions regarding lessons learnt in terms of what worked well and what could have been improved in the development of Exhibit AI.
These lessons include the need to centre those with lived experience at the centre of all such projects, the way in which AI and technology can fill a need for restorative justice that traditional legal avenues cannot and achieves access to justice aims.
I will discuss the ethical considerations involved in the project. For example, how AI portrays people of different backgrounds, how to ensure the images aren’t mistaken for real photographs and what kind of situations lend themselves to the use of AI (for example, in the case of Exhibit AI, journalists weren’t allowed in Australia’s offshore detention centres so there aren’t images readily available.)
I will further discuss the practicalities of creating the AI images and how the process worked. I will also provide an overview of the consultation process and how the project was led by those with lived experience.
There will also be the opportunity to hear from the refugees themselves (through video recordings) who developed and participated in Exhibit AI as to their opinions on the project and recommendations for those who may wish to undertake a similar project.
Georgina Rychner, Victoria Law Foundation
The Victoria Law Foundation’s (VLF’s) Data Mapping Project reports (2020-2023) examined the use and utility of Victoria’s civil justice data and found a system-wide need for smarter, people-centred justice data that goes beyond outputs and activity to what happens for different groups and the outcomes achieved.
VLF’s recent Public Understanding of Law Survey (PULS) (2023) found high rates of unmet legal need for civil justice problems across Victoria, even when Victorians used legal services. Where a legal need existed, 78% went unmet. Further reporting of PULS understanding and capability measures (2024) demonstrated inequality in legal capability across the Victorian community. The data shows a clear mismatch between what people need and what they are getting.
Both sets of reports emphasise critical gaps in empirical understanding of what works to effectively meet legal needs, and a lack of evidence regarding the outcomes and impacts of legal services for users with diverse legal need and capability.
In response, VLF’s Measure for Measure: Tailoring Everyday Justice Project is exploring collective knowledge of what works for particular clients and communities across Victoria. The research is designed to identify opportunities for, and barriers to, operationalising people-centred justice approaches, including sustaining and scaling up solutions.
Measure for Measure is an exploratory research project that seeks to build an operational model of people-centered justice, informed by on-the-ground experiences in the Victorian justice system. Through survey and follow-up interviews with legal assistance services, courts and tribunals, and other justice stakeholders, the project looks to deepen the understanding and evidence of strategies seen to be meeting legal needs effectively, and what is needed to close knowledge gaps.
This paper will present the methods used to explore perceptions of what works to meet legal need and outline preliminary project findings. More broadly, the project findings are situated within the emerging global people-centred justice and what works research agendas.
Lauren Sudeall, Vanderbilt Law School
Pervasive shortcomings of existing court procedures and shortfalls in legal service delivery have resulted in increased calls for structural, demand-side court reform, bringing courts in line with realistic expectations of pro se litigants and alleviating the need for external supports. Such reforms hold great promise for improving access to the courts, yet their potential effects on individual litigants’ autonomy and agency have not been thoroughly interrogated. In asking courts to affirmatively assume greater responsibility for ensuring fairness and accuracy, might we unwittingly be sacrificing individuals’ ability to shape their own justice-seeking process? This Article explores the motivations for and current direction of structural reforms and their consequent effects on the capacity for litigant self-determination. Ultimately, the two need not be mutually exclusive, and increased involvement of impacted people in the development and evaluation of such reforms may help identify possibilities for reconciliation. Regardless of which actors drive the reform process, it is critical that they continually keep in mind the competing procedural justice interests at stake.
This paper is informed in large part by my ongoing work as an Associate Reporter for Principles of the Law, High-Volume Civil Adjudication (a Principles Project of the American Law Institute).