Introduction

This chapter develops the argument for a holistic vision of access to justice (Creutzfeldt et al 2021). We expand upon Wrbka's (2014) definition of the concept of access to justice [that] embodies the ideal that everybody, regardless of their capabilities, should have the chance to enjoy the protection and enforcement of their rights by the use of law and the legal system, and thus argue that we need a broader definition. To date, access to justice has been refined down to a narrow ‘legal justice’ focus, involving access to legal assistance in the form of legal advice and access to resolution in the form of legal institutions. However, a more generous vision for access to justice is needed that includes initial advice and help from non-legal support, social and community actors (for example, friends, family, the advice sector, local councils, specialist non-governmental organizations, schools, the internet) as components of the delivery of access to justice. In light of this vision, we discuss the legal needs literature and propose a more generous approach to access to justice, reaching beyond legal confines. Following on from that, we distinguish access to offline justice from access to online justice, and then set out theoretical frameworks through which to understand access to justice and analyse people's digital journeys in our dataset.

Legal needs and vulnerability

Legal needs surveys investigate the experience of justiciable problems from the perspective of those who face them (a ‘bottom-up’ perspective), rather than from that of justice professionals and institutions (a ‘topdown’ perspective). They seek to identify and explore the full range of responses to problems and, within this, all the various sources of help and expert institutions that are utilized in pursuing problem resolution. Such surveys provide a uniquely comprehensive overview that is impossible to achieve by other means. Existing research based on legal needs surveys has demonstrated that those experiencing the greatest social and economic disadvantage and marginalization are often the least likely to take any action in response to a rights-based problem (Sandefur 2015b; Franklyn et al 2017).