The date is 29 October 2018. It is, relatively speaking, a quiet Monday morning at Stratford Housing Centre, which is housed in the shabby magistrates’ court in the London borough of Newham. There are 12 rent possession cases on the housing list for the morning session. On a busy day, the duty adviser Simon Mullings can see as many as 20 people. “It can be manic,” he tells us as we sit in the duty solicitor's office next door to the court. “You’re literally running between the duty room and the court, constantly talking to housing officers and ushers.”

Mullings, a senior case worker at Edwards Duthie solicitors based in the East End, has been covering the duty scheme for 15 years. His job as court duty adviser it is to provide last-minute emergency advice to those who might otherwise be evicted. He greets each tenant in the same cheery and reassuring manner: “Good afternoon, I’m Simon Mullings. I’m here to advise you about the case. I can represent you in court.”

Confusion is unavoidable

It is a bewildering experience for tenants fearful of losing their homes. They don't know what to expect and don't know whether the amiable Mullings is friend or foe. “Half of them think you’re the judge,” he explains between clients. “I have people ask me if they are going to go to prison today.”

Each tenant has roughly five minutes of Mullings’ time. He shuffles through their paperwork, should they have had the foresight to bring any, and quickly tries to work out what on earth is going on. These snatched meetings are occasionally interrupted by the clerk directing him to Courtroom 12, where a deputy district judge presides over cases in about the same amount of time as Mullings has to make sense of them.

It is conveyor belt justice. The judge has to get through his list and the clerk is there to make sure he does. “The more people there are in court on any given day, the less time I have to explain what's going on and the more confusing it is for clients,” says Mullings. “The confusion is unavoidable.”

It is hard to think of a court process where stakes are higher and, yet, where ‘access to justice’ is more imperilled.