For centuries, the judicial system has enabled the parties in dispute and/or their legal representatives to present evidence and arguments in support of their claims, and to dispute those of the other side in person and in court, after which a judge or, in criminal cases, a jury determines the outcome of the case. Now all this is set to change. In future, most cases will be lodged online, the parties in dispute, who will be located remotely, will be expected to present their own cases and challenge those of the other side interactively, and, after reviewing the case materials, a judge will identify the issues in dispute and make a determination. Few people are aware of what lies in store and, not least for this reason, this short book by Joe Tomlinson is very much to be welcomed. Digitalization will have huge implications, not only for administrative justice, on which the book focuses, but also for civil and criminal justice.

In less than 100 pages, Justice in the Digital State presents three well‐crafted and thought‐provoking case studies: the first deals with the growing use of online crowdfunding platforms to fund judicial reviews of government policies in the courts; the second focuses on the government's ambitious ‘transformation project’ which aims to digitalize court and tribunal procedures; and the third analyses the use of new ‘agile’ methodologies in the construction of digitalized administrative justice systems.

In an introductory chapter, Joe Tomlinson draws attention to the importance of evidence for institutional design and, in his first case study, he presents some useful empirical data on the rapid expansion of crowdfunding since the swingeing cuts to legal aid were introduced in 2012. However, the figures are not broken down in any way and no estimates of how much of the total has been used to fund judicial reviews are provided. If he had been able to demonstrate that crowdfunding had given a boost to the number of judicial reviews, he could have argued that it has promoted access to justice, but even then it would not have followed that it has therefore given a boost to administrative justice. Although a successful action of judicial review identifies and strikes down the very small number of administrative decisions that are clearly unlawful, it does not contribute anything to improving the large number of poor‐quality administrative decisions that are nevertheless lawful. Judicial review makes a very small contribution to administrative justice if this is defined as the justice inherent in first‐instance administrative decisions and the effectiveness of the procedures that can be used to challenge them.

The second case study deals with the very ambitious plans to ‘modernize’ courts and tribunals that were published by the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Senior President of Tribunals in 201611 Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and the Senior President of Tribunals Transforming Our Justice System (2016). but that have not received much publicity. The cost of the reform programme has been estimated to be more than £1 billion, with most of it being spent on digitizing court and tribunal procedures. The case study does not include any references to the reform of civil or criminal courts22 On the digititalization of civil courts, see F. Wilmot‐Smith, ‘Justice eBay Style’ (2019) 41 London Review of Books 27. but deals exclusively with the reform of tribunals.

Tomlinson presents a straightforward account of the government's plans, pointing out that the case for reform was prompted by the draconian cuts to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ)’s budget that led to the closure of many courts and tribunal venues and to significant reductions in the number of court and tribunal staff. It was envisaged that the work of courts and tribunals would involve a mixture of online, virtual, and traditional hearings but, as the new online tribunal procedures will be based on automatically shared paperwork: users will get updates on the progress of their appeals by text message or email; wherever possible, non‐legal language will be used; the parties in dispute will be brought together sooner; and there will be a move towards continuous online dispute resolution and a ‘more conversational approach’ to decision making.

As Tomlinson notes, Her Majesty's Courts & Tribunal Service (HMCTS) decided that the new digital procedures should be tested first in the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal (SSCST) and then in the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal (IAT). He might have pointed out that these were rather odd decisions since the SSCST and the IAT are two of the largest tribunal jurisdictions in which the needs and circumstances of many of the appellants are particularly complex. It would arguably have made more sense to test the new digital procedures in some more straightforward settings.

In the course of this account, Tomlinson identifies what he calls ‘the core question’, which is whether digitalization will, in time, improve access to and the quality of administrative justice. On the one hand, disputes may be resolved more quickly, more cheaply, more conveniently, and in a more user‐friendly way. If so, more people may choose to appeal. On the other hand, success rates may be lower, costs may ultimately rise overall, and levels of satisfaction with digital procedures may be lower than with traditional face‐to‐face procedures. If so, fewer people may choose to appeal and those who are uncomfortable with digital procedures may be excluded. Moreover, some aspects of digital hearings may be successful while others are not. As Tomlinson rightly points out, it is almost certainly too early to say. The only conclusion that can be drawn at this stage is that the government has embarked on an enormous gamble.

Although an accurate assessment of the success or otherwise of the digitalization programme will require detailed empirical research, there are, as yet, no plans for this. In the absence of research findings, one might have expected to find some references to the Reform Updates published by HMCTS, in which the government outlines the progress that has been made so far.33 These cover reforms of the criminal courts, civil courts, and family courts as well as of tribunals. Three Reform Updates, dated Spring 2018, Autumn 2018, and Summer 2019, have been published so far. The most recent report44 Available at <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806959/HMCTS_Reform_Update_Summer_19.pdf>. suggests that progress can, at best, be described as ‘modest’. More than 14,000 people have submitted online appeals against Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment Support Allowance (ESA) benefit decisions to the First‐Tier Tribunal; appellants who have used ‘Track Your Appeal Online’ have received text and email alerts letting them know what is happening; and HMCTS has launched a small pilot digital service for IAT appeals, and tested the use of case workers in asylum appeals at two hearing centres. This is clearly not a sufficient basis on which to form a judgement about the advantages or disadvantages of online dispute resolution in tribunals as compared with face‐to‐face proceedings or to assess the effects of digitalization on administrative justice.

The third case study, which comprises a very illuminating account of how the digitalization programme is being devised and implemented, is something of a gem. Tomlinson identifies the key role played by the Government Digital Service (GDS), a unit within the Cabinet Office with a mandate covering digital strategy, services, hiring, and procurement, which operates across the whole of government. Tomlinson describes GDS’ embrace of ‘agile’ or ‘design‐thinking’ approaches that emphasize the perspectives of system ‘users’, developing prototype systems and consistently testing systems with users, and contrasts this with the traditional ‘top‐down’ approach preferred by civil servants. This case study indicates how the digitalization programme could contribute to administrative justice.

In my own work on administrative justice, I have identified six different models that compete for ascendancy in different contexts. This work builds on an approach to administrative justice originally developed by Jerry Mashaw.55 See J. Mashaw, Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims (1983). The most recent statement of my development of Mashaw's approach can be found in M. Adler, ‘Understanding and Analysing Administrative Justice’ in Administrative Justice in Context (2010) 132. In Table 1 below, what was formerly referred to as the ‘consumerist model’ has been replaced with a ‘user model’, in which the mode of decision making involves meeting users’ needs, the legitimating goal is users’ preferences, the mode of accountability is co‐production between users and IT staff, and the mode of redress involves the design of a new prototype.

As I have argued elsewhere,66 See, for example, Adler, op. cit., n. 5. each of the competing models of administrative justice has its sponsors who seek to promote it. In this case, the sponsors of the bureaucratic model are civil servants in senior management positions at HQ and in local Jobcentres; the sponsors of the professional model are work coaches and health professionals; the sponsors of the legal model are tribunal judges, HMCTS staff, and those who represent appellants at tribunals; the sponsors of the managerial model are managers in Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) local offices and their counterparts who work for the external contactors; the sponsors of the user model are claimants and IT staff in local offices and in the GDS; the sponsors of the market model are those working for the external contactors. The ways in which these sponsors act and interact as they struggle to promote their interests determine administrative justice in any given context.

The Treasury will only have been persuaded to allocate funds for the MoJ's digitalization programme because it accepted the case that it represented ‘value for money’ – that is, that it would deliver more for less. For those who regard administrative justice as important, it will be necessary to ensure that the digitalization programme delivers ‘more justice for more people’. However, as pointed out above, in the absence of any research on the roll‐out, it is clearly too early to say whether it will do so.

Justice in the Digital State should be welcomed for drawing attention to the very significant changes in the administration of justice that are currently taking place in the United Kingdom, and probably in other jurisdictions as well. Although the book focuses on administrative justice, digitalization will bring about equally important changes in civil and criminal justice. For this reason, and because the reforms are still at an early stage, this tantalizingly short book is unlikely to be the last word on the subject.

几个世纪以来，司法系统使争端各方和/或其法律代表能够提供证据和论据来支持其主张，并亲自和在法庭上对另一方的主张提出异议，然后由法官或其他形式的诉讼人来代替。刑事案件，由陪审团决定案件的结果。现在，这一切都将改变。将来，大多数案件将在线上提交，位于遥远的争议当事方将提出自己的案件，并以交互方式挑战另一方的案件，在审查案件材料后，法官将确定争执的问题并做出决定。很少有人知道存储的内容，而且，至少出于这个原因，乔·汤姆林森（Joe Tomlinson）撰写的这本简短的书非常受欢迎。数字化将产生巨大的影响，

在不到100页的数字状态下，《数字国家的司法》提供了三个精心设计和发人深省的案例研究：第一个涉及在线众筹平台越来越多地用于为法院对政府政策的司法审查提供资金；第二个重点是政府雄心勃勃的“转型项目”，旨在数字化法院和法庭程序。第三部分分析了新的“敏捷”方法在数字化行政司法系统建设中的使用。

在介绍性章节中，乔·汤姆林森（Joe Tomlinson）提请注意证据对机构设计的重要性，并且在他的第一个案例研究中，他提供了自2012年实行法律援助大幅削减以来众筹迅速扩张的一些有用的经验数据。 ，这些数字没有以任何方式细分，也没有提供有关总额用于司法审查的估计数。如果他能够证明众筹增加了司法复审的次数，他可能会辩称众筹已经促进了诉诸司法的机会，但即便如此，它也不会因此而推动了行政司法的发展。 。尽管成功的司法审查行动可以识别并删除极少数明显违法的行政决定，它对改善大量合法的低质量行政决策没有任何帮助。如果司法审查被定义为一审行政决定所固有的司法以及可以用来质疑行政司法程序的效力，那么它对行政司法的贡献就很小。

第二个案例研究涉及大法官，首席大法官和法庭高级庭长于20161年发布的“现代化”法院和法庭计划的雄心勃勃的计划。1大法官，首席大法官和高级法庭庭长改变了我们的司法体系（2016年）。但这还没有得到太多的宣传。据估计，该改革计划的成本超过10亿英镑，其中大部分用于数字化法院和法庭程序。该案例研究未提及对民事或刑事法院的改革22关于民事法院的数字化，请参阅F.Wilmot-Smith，``正义eBay风格''（2019年）41伦敦书评27。但专门处理法庭的改革。

汤姆林森简单地介绍了政府的计划，并指出改革的原因是司法部削减预算的严厉削减，导致许多法院和法庭所在地的关闭，以及法院的大幅度削减。法院和法庭工作人员的数量。预计法院和法庭的工作将涉及在线，虚拟和传统听证会的混合，但是，由于新的在线法庭程序将基于自动共享的文书工作：用户将通过文字了解其上诉进展的最新信息消息或电子邮件；在可能的情况下，将使用非法律语言；有争议的各方将尽快召集在一起；而且将朝着持续的在线纠纷解决和决策的“更多对话方式”迈进。

正如汤姆林森（Tomlinson）所指出的，英国je下法院和法庭服务（HMCTS）决定，新的数字程序应首先在社会保障和儿童抚养法庭（SSCST）中进行测试，然后再在移民和庇护法庭（IAT）中进行测试。他可能已经指出，这些决定是相当奇怪的决定，因为SSCST和IAT是两个最大的法庭管辖区，其中许多上诉人的需求和情况特别复杂。可以说，在一些更简单的环境中测试新的数字程序会更有意义。

在此过程中，汤姆林森确定了他所谓的“核心问题”，即数字化是否会及时改善行政司法的获取和质量。一方面，可以更快，更便宜，更方便，更友好地解决争端。如果是这样，更多的人可能会选择上诉。另一方面，与传统的面对面程序相比，成功率可能较低，成本最终可能总体上会上升，并且对数字程序的满意度可能较低。如果这样的话，选择上诉的人将会减少，那些对数字程序不满意的人可能会被排除在外。此外，数字听证会的某些方面可能会成功，而其他方面则不会。正如汤姆林森正确指出的那样，现在说这几乎为时过早。

尽管要准确评估数字化计划的成功与否，需要进行详细的经验研究，但目前尚无计划。在缺乏研究结果的情况下，人们可能希望找到对HMCTS发布的《改革最新动态》的一些参考，其中政府概述了迄今为止取得的进展。33这些涵盖了刑事法院，民事法院，家庭法院以及法庭的改革。到目前为止，已发布了三个改革更新，日期分别为2018年春季，2018年秋季和2019年夏季。 最新报告44在<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806959/HMCTS_Reform_Update_Summer_19.pdf>中可用。表明进步最多只能被描述为“适度”。超过14,000人向第一层法庭提交了针对个人独立付款（PIP）和就业支持津贴（ESA）利益决定的在线上诉；使用“在线跟踪您的上诉”的上诉人已经收到文本和电子邮件警报，使他们知道发生了什么；HMCTS为IAT上诉推出了一个小型试点数字服务，并在两个听证中心测试了在庇护上诉中使用案例工作者的情况。显然，这不是一个充分的依据，无法据此判断法庭在线解决争议与面对面诉讼相比的优缺点，或者评估数字化对行政司法的影响。

第三个案例研究非常生动地说明了数字化程序是如何设计和实施的。汤姆林森（Tomlinson）确定了政府数字服务（GDS）所扮演的关键角色，该数字是内阁办公室的一个部门，职责涵盖数字策略，服务，雇用和采购，其职责范围遍及整个政府。Tomlinson描述了GDS对“敏捷”或“设计思想”方法的接受，这些方法强调系统“用户”的观点，开发原型系统并与用户进行一致的测试系统，并将其与传统的“自上而下”方法形成对比。公务员。该案例研究表明了数字化计划如何有助于行政司法。

在我自己的行政司法工作中，我确定了六个在不同情况下争夺优势的不同模型。这项工作建立在最初由杰里·马修（Jerry Mashaw）开发的行政司法方法之上。55见J. Mashaw，《官僚司法：管理社会保障残疾索赔》（1983年）。关于我对Mashaw方法的发展的最新陈述可以在M.Adler的《理解和分析行政司法》一书中找到，《行政司法在上下文中》（2010）132。 在下面的表1中，以前称为“消费者模型”的内容已由“用户模型”代替，其中决策模式涉及满足用户需求，合法目标是用户的偏好，问责制是用户和IT员工之间的共同产物，补救方式涉及新原型的设计。

正如我在其他地方所说的，66参见，例如，Adler，同上。cit。，n。5，每种竞争性的行政司法模式都有其发起人寻求推广。在这种情况下，官僚模式的发起者是总部和当地Jobcentres的高级管理职位的公务员；专业模式的发起人是工作教练和卫生专业人员；法律模式的发起人是法庭法官，HMCTS工作人员以及代表法庭上诉人的人；管理模式的发起人是美国工作和退休金局（DWP）本地办公室的经理以及为外部联系人工作的同行。用户模型的发起人是地方办事处和GDS中的索赔人和IT人员；市场模型的发起人是那些为外部接触者工作的人。

财政部只会被说服为日本司法部的数字化计划分配资金，因为它接受了代表“物有所值”的情况，也就是说，它将以更少的钱提供更多的钱。对于那些认为行政司法很重要的人来说，有必要确保数字化计划能够“为更多人提供更多司法公正”。但是，如上所述，在缺乏有关推出的任何研究的情况下，现在说是否这样做尚为时过早。

应该欢迎数字国家的司法人员提请注意英国和其他司法管辖区当前正在发生的司法方面的重大变化。尽管该书侧重于行政司法，但数字化将在民事和刑事司法方面带来同样重要的变化。由于这个原因，并且由于改革仍处于初期阶段，因此这本极具吸引力的简短书籍不太可能成为该主题的最后一句话。