452 • Identifying the Stateless in the United Kingdom 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Stephanie J Silverman and Petra Molnar, ‘Everyday Injustices: Barriers to Access to Justice for Immigration Detainees in Canada’ (2016) 35(1) Refugee Survey Quarterly 109. For empirical studies, see also Jennifer A Leitch, ‘Looking for Quality: The Empirical Debate in Access to Justice Research’ (2013) 31 The Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 229; Jessica Steinberg, ‘Demand Side Reform in the Poor People’s Court’ (2015) GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No 2015–21. Robert Doyle and Livy Visano, ‘Equality and Multiculturalism: Access to Community Services’ (1988) 3 Journal of Law and Social Policy 21. Andrew J Roman, ‘Barriers to Justice: Including the Excluded’ in Allan C Hutchinson (ed), Access to Civil Justice (Carswell 1990) 181. See eg Hutchinson (n 66). Macdonald (n 57) 28. Ronald Sackville, Law and Poverty in Australia (Australian Government Publishing Service 1975) 3; Doyle and Visano (n 65) 21, 27. Macdonald (n 57) 27. In this article, ‘effective remedy’ means that the application of procedural rules should not make the exercise of the right virtually impossible or excessively difficult. FRA (n 55) 18. Terlouw (n 57). Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijrl/article/32/3/440/6065591 by guest on 04 July 2025 Furthermore, research on claimants’ conception of justice and access remains limited. It is only recently that studies have begun investigating access to justice from claimants’ points of view by adopting a holistic perspective so that the analysis ­additionally includes dismantling the ‘barriers’ that claimants face.64 The metaphor of ­‘barriers’ points to the underlying distinction between the availability of a service or right, and access to it.65 ‘Availability’ refers to whether a right or service (for example, right to counsel) exists at all, whereas ‘access’ denotes whether a right or service is actually secured. The gap between availability of a right and access to enjoyment of that right is caused by ‘barriers’.66 Traditionally, the literature’s main focus has been on ‘objective barriers’ (those that are capable of measurement), such as delays, cost, and complexity of the law.67 The emphasis on objective barriers has been criticized for ignoring the lack of access owing to socio-cultural obstacles, also known as ‘subjective barriers’, which refer to difficulties commonly experienced by racial minorities, women, migrants, and the elderly in dealing with the legal system.68 In particular, these challenges include a lack of basic communication skills for those not fluent in the language of the host country; poor understanding of the legal consequences of simple actions, such as signing a form; the unavailability of legal assistance resulting in claimants’ inability to present their cases to the administration or to the courts; and economic disadvantage.69 Finally, some scholars also address the problem of ‘physical barriers’, which concern material access to official institutions and related legal services (for instance, for people in detention).70 Drawing from the aforementioned scholarship, this article uses ‘access to justice’ to mean, first, the ability to vindicate rights in an accessible way through a process that ensures an effective remedy.71 This entails all the elements of a fair trial, such as access to an independent and impartial adjudicator; a timely remedy; and the right to be advised and represented through legal aid in the case of lack of or insufficient resources. 72