Abstract
Over the past generation there have been significant reforms to the way the state supports the just resolution of legal disputes. Influenced by public sector managerialism, the state has sought ever greater cost-effectiveness by tempering demand for justice in the courts. Using Australia as an example, this article analyses six processes by which the state has modulated this demand, namely, extinguishing, expelling, diverting, incentivising, filtering and demoting. But at what price? Greater efficiencies sometimes come at a cost to other fundamental values, such as access to justice, fair process, impartial decision-making, just outcomes and public trust. This article evaluates these tensions by examining a suite of specific demand management mechanisms that have been widely used in civil and criminal disputes in Australia.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
