Making Justice Accessible: Law for Change's Submission to Parliament
Access to justice shouldn't depend on being either very rich or very poor. Yet that's increasingly the reality facing ordinary people trying to challenge injustice through the legal system. Law for Change has submitted evidence to the Justice Committee's inquiry into access to justice, drawing on our experience of backing over 80 precedent-setting cases since our launch in 2023 and offering concrete solutions to make the system fairer.
On the 18th November Law for Change hosted an event ‘Using Law for Change: Are Parliamentarians Onside in Improving Access to Justice’, in partnership with Chair of the Justice Committee, Andy Slaughter MP, attended by over 200 guests.
This was an invaluable opportunity for parliamentarians, lawyers, NGOs and funders to come together to discuss the latest opportunities and challenges in using law for social change. Speakers and attendees included the Attorney General Richard Hermer, Sarah Sackman MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretaries for Sentencing and VAWG, alongside a range of senior MPs.
What is the Access to Justice Inquiry?
The Justice Committee launched this inquiry on 23 July 2025 to examine access to justice in England and Wales. The cross-party committee is chaired by Labour MP Andy Slaughter.
He said: “There has never been more need to challenge the state and other institutions on points of public interest on behalf of citizens and to improve access to justice. Law for Change is leading the way on this and I am delighted to sponsor this event to highlight these issues.”
MPs are investigating the state of legal services and representation, and how pressures on the system affect people’s ability to get justice. They’re looking at how the sector has adapted since LASPO 2012 (the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act) which drastically reduced legal aid and created many of today’s access problems.
The Committee is also examining several critical issues: the impact of those acting without legal advice and representation on access to justice, potential new funding options, and the scope for future innovations and potential adaptation of services, funding, regulation and technology to support access to justice.
The access to justice gap
From the point of view of an individual, challenging an injustice through legal action is daunting. From a financial point of view, it's prohibitive if you're not very rich (able to afford the potentially ruinous costs) or very poor (eligible for increasingly restrictive legal aid). Everyone else risks being locked out unless they have organisational backing.
This leaves a vast gulf in our justice system. Important cases with clear social value, ones that could benefit entire communities and clarify the law, simply don't get heard. Powerful organisations and public bodies face less accountability. Manifest injustices persist unchallenged. Law for Change was founded to help bridge this gap.
Our Recommendations to the Committee
Law for Change's submission focused specifically on Question 4 of the Committee's call for evidence: "Without impacting the public purse, what potential funding options would increase access to justice?"
We've identified a demonstrable need and opportunity to 'crowd in' philanthropic funding whilst engaging the legal community in acting for the public good. Based on our experience, we make four key recommendations:
1. Recognise and increase legally focused philanthropy
Funding legal action can be complex and challenging. The process of understanding the costs of legal actions is unlike typical grantmaking; it can be convoluted, multi-staged, and requires specific legal and technical expertise to assess the merits and possible consequences of claims.
Organisations like Law for Change are creating new routes for funders to pool and deploy resources strategically, effectively, and charitably, drawing on sound legal expertise. This kind of philanthropy plays a vital role as society’s “risk capital” - taking on cases that others can’t or won’t fund.
Greater awareness and appreciation of robust models to engage in this area could lead to more philanthropic resources directed towards access to justice, as well as more positive examples of philanthropic action for the public good. In due course, successful actions and the threat of them ought to act as an incentive to more law abiding behaviour.
2. Make cost caps routine in judicial review
The threat of massive costs deters many people from challenging public bodies. Cost caps of between £10,000 and £25,000 are sometimes agreed through judicial review challenges of public bodies, but they should be applied as routine, not as exceptions.
These caps reduce all sides' liabilities and remove the chilling effect of potentially ruinous costs orders. They level the playing field between powerful organisations or government departments and ordinary people seeking to challenge unlawful decisions.
3. Extend cost caps to private companies
Standard cost caps should be extended to apply to claims against private corporations as well as public bodies. This would be a significant step towards holding companies to account when they abuse their power, bringing access to justice within sight for ordinary people.
£25,000 is an appropriate threshold. It's high enough to deter weak claims, whilst still allowing contributions from claimants alongside crowdfunding and philanthropic backing to demonstrate the wider interest to the community and public. Companies might still choose to spend more in their defence but would not be able to use the threat of punitive costs to deter legitimate claims.
4. Promote efficiency through reducing oral hearings
To make access to justice less expensive, we suggest reducing the amount of evidence delivered orally where it simply reads out what already exists in documents. This practical reform could significantly reduce costs without compromising the quality of justice.
Real cases, real change
Our submission highlights four examples that demonstrate the power of making justice accessible.
The cases we have funded share a common thread: they would likely not have been heard without targeted funding backing. Each has created change far beyond the individual claimants involved.
Access to justice isn't just about individual cases, it's about the health of our democracy. When people can't challenge unlawful decisions by public bodies, hold corporations to account, or seek clarification of their rights, the rule of law itself is undermined.
The cases we've backed span housing and planning, immigration and asylum, human rights and civil liberties, discrimination, children and vulnerable adults, actions against police, employment, climate change, and data rights. These aren't niche concerns - they're fundamental to how our society functions.
Looking forward
We've submitted our evidence to the Justice Committee and stand ready to provide further oral or written evidence as requested. The Committee's inquiry, which builds on their earlier 2022-23 work on the Future of Legal Aid, represents a vital opportunity to examine how we can build a more accessible, fairer justice system.
Our submission makes clear that increasing access to justice without impacting the public purse is not only possible - it's already happening. What's needed now is recognition of this model's value, reforms to make the system more balanced (through routine cost caps), and promotion of efficiency measures that reduce costs without sacrificing quality.
When the financial barriers that lock ordinary people out of the justice system are removed, remarkable things happen. Cases that create precedent get heard. Powerful organisations face accountability. Vulnerable communities gain a voice. And the law evolves to serve justice, not just those who can afford it.