"Justice is at a dead end" Judge Cadelli denounces the lack of inclusion in the judicial system

No, and it's less and less so. And for a variety of reasons. Firstly, a major step was taken in 2014 towards a judicial system that excludes rather than includes, with, on the one hand, the passing of the so-called "potpourri" laws that modified civil and criminal procedure. These included, for example, the abolition of certain legal remedies. And secondly, the switch to 21% VAT on bailiffs' and lawyers' fees, which further increased legal costs. Real financial and procedural barriers to access to justice have thus been erected in recent years. Moreover, the austerity and lack of resources affecting the justice system also make it less inclusive. In every courthouse, people are absent or ill and are not replaced, or are replaced by people with no status. The justice system therefore excludes valuable profiles and committed people in its own workings.

Yes, on quality and quantity. For example, the King's prosecutors denounce the fact that public prosecutors' offices and police forces no longer have the human and material resources to carry out complicated investigations. As a result, "easy" cases are more easily assigned to hearings where vulnerable people are more exposed. The combination of all these factors, to which we must necessarily add the threat of the algorithmization of justice, i.e. the use of artificial intelligence in decision-making procedures, leads to the downgrading of the most vulnerable. For example, an algorithm can decide who, among welfare recipients, should be subject to more stringent fraud checks. This begs the question: on the basis of what criteria (racial, cultural, etc.), what data, what causal link, etc.? In my opinion, this so-called decision-making aid represents an increased risk of exclusion, not to mention the digital divide. Justice is in big trouble!

Mediation. The legislator has allowed it in civil matters since December 2023, and it's a path that many magistrates are taking. This choice is voluntary: personally, I do it twice a month. Mediation is even a process of re-inclusion, reintegrating people into their dispute. There's no more black and white: everyone does their part, and everyone is committed to resolving the conflict to the benefit of both parties. In addition to this positive effect, it's a less costly alternative mode, and within a few months you can resolve a case "from the top down", reinjecting respect and dignity for everyone, including in the eyes of your adversary.

Alongside theory and practice, I'm always careful to pass on the fundamentals; in other words, a form of savoir-être in relation to the litigant in a perspective of absolute respect. The only vulnerable person in a courtroom is the defendant. He alone can see his life turned upside down in a hearing, and it is he who comes to defend a part of his life, a part of his person. For the lawyer, the only risk is losing the case. These are fundamentals that also help to make justice more inclusive. And what reassures me is that the students I work with are very receptive to these fundamentals. It's a ray of hope!

Of course, but with all due precautions. The principle of alert, and freedom of expression are vital levers of action. So yes, I recommend expressing oneself, but with arguments. And to argue, you first have to study your subject in depth, comparing opinions and knowledge. With these precautions in mind, I call on the younger generation of jurists to get involved, to act, because there is no lost cause. It's a source of hope.

Manuela Cadelli is a judge at the Namur court of first instance and former president of the Association syndicale des magistrats (2013-2019). She has published several books and is completing an essay entitled "AI and Justice: a critical inquiry".