As part of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many jurisdictions across the world introduced remote hearings as an alternative way of continuing to offer access to courts. This practice-based article discusses the report prepared by the author for a judicial review case which revolved around the claim that in immigration settings the quality of interpreting conducted in fully online hearings is inferior to interpreting in face-to-face hearings. In the absence of pre-existing research comparing the impact of the physical and fully online settings on interpreting, the author’s expert witness report explored linguistic principles governing conversation and turn-taking management, power relations and narrativisation and discursive practices in online and physical settings to illustrate communicative advantages and disadvantages of each environment. The article draws on the investigations conducted for the expert witness report and pursues the following aims: (1) reflect on the role of linguistic expertise required for the case; (2) detail the conclusions drawn and recommendations endorsed in the report; (3) discuss the importance of effective communication in immigration settings; (4) challenge common misconceptions in relation to how narratives are elicited, shared and perceived; (5) explore safeguarding strategies for enhancing discursive practices in fully remote hearings in order to improve non-native speakers’ access to justice.

The study explores the quality of advice offered by lay advisers on social media groups and online forums. The focus is on the online advice provision in relation to child-related cases, which are part of private or public family law proceedings in the context of England and Wales. Since many addressees of such advice are self-represented litigants, it is crucial to understand what kind of support is offered by law advisers, whose professional motivation or level of expertise are underexplored. By drawing on content analysis and discourse analysis, the study reflects on the substantive content and linguistic framing of the advice offered online. The article contextualises the role of lay advisers in light of (1) the challenges self-represented litigants experience when accessing the justice system and (2) the growing popularity of using online resources and social platforms for obtaining legal information and advice.

The article explores the comprehensibility of court forms by providing a quantitative overview and a qualitative analysis of such syntactic characteristics as length and structure of sentences and noun phrases. The analysis is viewed in the broader context of genre characteristics of court forms, their role within legal proceedings, and their function for eliciting narratives from court users. The findings show that while the elicitation strategies are not always coherently aligned with the guidance sections, the guidance itself condenses legal and procedural information into overly complex and verbose syntactic constructions. Comprehensibility barriers are thus created through breaks in information flow, ambiguous syntactic constructions, missing information and misalignment between questions and guidance. Such comprehension challenges have a negative impact on the potential of court users to effectively engage with legal proceedings.

No abstract

The article explores court forms as an interactive genre essential for legal-lay communication in civil and family proceedings: court forms elicit key information from predominantly lay users for the purposes of court administration and the judiciary. The information presented in court forms defines the agenda and communicative focus of the subsequent hearings and settlement negotiations, and in some instances even the path the proceedings would take. It is thus important to consider court forms in terms of their comprehensibility as well as functionality for eliciting legally coherent narratives and facilitating efficient engagement of lay participants with the proceedings. The case study presented in the article draws on the combination of corpus linguistics and discourse analysis to explore two versions of the court form most frequently used by self-represented parties in England and Wales, ‘Form C100: Apply for a court order to make arrangements for a child or resolve a dispute about their upbringing’. The comparison of the paper form and its redesigned online version identifies the improvements made as part of the digitisation process but also indicates communicative challenges which can prevent the lay person from presenting the relevant information. The discussion provides an opportunity to reflect on the role of language in online courts.