Written by Justice technology · regulatory oversight · public accountability
The HMCTS evidence bug and the SRA’s handling of the Axiom Ince collapse point to the same deeper risk: critical justice institutions can fail not only when technology or process breaks, but when warnings are ignored and transparency is delayed.
Publication snapshot
- A reported IT bug in HMCTS case management software has been linked to missing or hidden evidence in court files.
- Internal sources reportedly alleged years of warning signs, delayed escalation and insufficient transparency.
- The article compares those concerns with the SRA’s handling of the Axiom Ince scandal.
- The common theme is institutional accountability when justice systems, regulators or digital processes fail.
The HMCTS evidence bug
A serious IT bug in the case management software used by HM Courts & Tribunals Service has been linked to missing or hidden evidence in court cases. Instead of promptly addressing the issue, HMCTS leadership has been accused by internal sources of “covering up” the flaw for several years.
According to those sources, the bug was first introduced in a 2018 system rollout and caused documents and data to be obscured from view or overwritten. The practical effect was that key evidence could disappear from digital case files while judges, lawyers and litigants proceeded with hearings unaware that material was missing.
Sir James Munby reportedly described the situation as “a scandal” and “shocking”, observing that an error could make the difference between a child being removed from an unsafe environment or a vulnerable person missing out on benefits.
Evidence lost across multiple courts
The scope of the data corruption is potentially broad. The problem first came to light in the Social Security and Child Support Tribunal, which hears benefit appeals, but insiders say other jurisdictions were likely affected.
That includes family courts, divorce cases, employment tribunals, civil claims and probate. If correct, the bug had systemic implications across much of the civil and family justice system, not just one tribunal jurisdiction.
Silent data loss
The case management software, described in the source material as Judicial Case Manager or MyHMCTS, reportedly failed to display or retain uploaded documents. Medical records, contact details and other vital evidence could vanish from the visible case file.
Years of inaction
Warnings reportedly began as early as 2019, shortly after launch. According to internal sources, senior management did not acknowledge the severity until years later, and an internal investigation was mounted only after whistleblower pressure.
Judgments on incomplete evidence
If judges made rulings without the full evidence before them, the risk is not administrative inconvenience but possible miscarriages of justice.
Hidden from stakeholders
The source material says judges, lawyers and the public were not informed when the bug was discovered, and that alerting court users was considered more harmful than quietly fixing issues behind the scenes.
Limited investigation
An internal review in early 2024 reportedly examined a limited sample of tribunal cases, identified hundreds with potential issues, then fully examined only a smaller subset before HMCTS declared the risk low.
HMCTS officially maintains that no case outcomes have been proven to be affected by the glitch. It has also suggested that fail-safes, such as backup copies, meant judges and parties ultimately had access to needed material.
A culture of cover-ups?
Insiders describe the HMCTS response as institutional resistance to accountability. Instead of transparency, they allege denial and deflection. One source within HMCTS described “general horror” among staff at how poorly the system was designed and how often data went missing, while upper management refused to confront the reality.
Several HMCTS sources reportedly likened the situation to the Post Office Horizon scandal, where IT flaws were concealed by management, with devastating consequences for sub-postmasters. The comparison is serious: it suggests an institutional instinct to suppress the truth about system failure rather than admit mistakes and mitigate harm.
Former Justice Secretary Alex Chalk is reported to have expressed outrage after learning of the courts IT bug after leaving office. According to the source material, he said that a report reached senior HMCTS leadership in March 2024 while he was in office but was never brought to his attention. He described the situation as “unbelievably serious”.
The Axiom Ince parallel at the solicitors regulator
The source article draws a parallel with the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s handling of the Axiom Ince scandal. Axiom Ince collapsed in 2023 amid allegations that its managing partner stole client money. An independent review by Carson McDowell reportedly described the SRA’s handling as a “catalogue of errors and missed opportunities”.
The review found that the SRA could have uncovered the fraud a full year earlier, in late 2022, but did not carry out an effective inspection of Axiom’s accounts when red flags first emerged. Investigators reportedly failed to verify client account balances with the bank and accepted forged documents at face value.
Missed verification
The report noted that 12 bank statements provided to the SRA were falsified, and that the regulator’s procedures did not catch it.
Delayed action
When the situation began to unravel in mid-2023, £36 million was reportedly drained from client accounts in the weeks following the initial alarm.
Known structural risk
The SRA had reportedly been aware since 2014 that fast-growing consolidator firms carried high risks, but Axiom Ince was not on its internal watchlist.
Oversight pressure
Following the collapse, the Legal Services Board launched enforcement action against the SRA for its failures.
The SRA’s chair, Anna Bradley, admitted that “there were some things we didn’t do right” in following processes. The source article criticises the regulator’s description of some issues as “history for us”, arguing that this risks sounding defensive rather than accountable.
Common accountability failures
The HMCTS evidence bug and the SRA’s Axiom Ince failures are different scandals, but they share common themes. In both, institutions entrusted with justice and professional integrity are said to have failed stakeholders by ignoring problems, dismissing warnings, and prioritising reputation over responsibility.
Institutional warning signs
- Internal warnings were reportedly raised before decisive action followed.
- Known risks were not escalated quickly enough.
- Senior leaders are said to have underestimated the public-interest consequences.
Public consequences
- Missing court evidence can affect fairness, outcomes and confidence.
- Regulatory failures can leave clients exposed to fraud and loss.
- Delayed transparency compounds the harm by preventing independent scrutiny.
Lessons for justice institutions
Both episodes point to practical lessons for organisations that administer justice or regulate legal services.
Transparency is paramount
Problems of this magnitude should be disclosed to those affected. If court users had been alerted to the HMCTS bug, mitigation steps such as checking evidence completeness could have taken place.
Internal culture must change
An institution that treats whistleblowers and technical experts as reputational threats will fail to manage real operational risk.
Accountability must reach the top
When senior leaders withhold information from oversight or downplay serious failings, consequences should follow. Independent review, public reporting and leadership accountability may be needed.
Modernisation must not outpace governance
Digitising courts and enabling rapid law-firm expansion may bring benefits, but safeguards, audits and escalation routes must keep pace.
Past scandals must be learned from
The comparison with Horizon is not rhetorical decoration. It is a warning that denial around technology failures can persist until lives and livelihoods are severely damaged.
Conclusion: hidden failures, public consequences
The HMCTS IT bug allegations and the SRA’s Axiom Ince failures expose a troubling thread running through justice-system institutions. Systemic issues require systemic solutions.
HMCTS should come clean about the extent of any case data losses and support independent scrutiny of whether injustices occurred. The SRA must show that its processes have genuinely changed so that a scandal like Axiom Ince cannot slip through the cracks again.
Technology is a double-edged sword in justice. It can improve efficiency and access, but if poorly implemented or deceptively managed, it can undermine the fairness and transparency that justice requires.
The ultimate duty of justice institutions is to the public and the rule of law, not to institutional image. Only honesty, accountability and reform can maintain confidence in the digital age.
Legal disclaimer
This article is based on information available from reputable public sources, including BBC File on 4 and official reports, at the time of writing. Some details are subject to ongoing investigation, review, or legal proceedings. References to individuals, organisations or events are made in the context of public-interest reporting and do not constitute legal advice, personal accusation, or definitive findings of fact. Readers should not rely solely on this article for legal or procedural guidance and should consult qualified legal professionals for advice on specific matters.
This scandal is tragic and how can we measure the injustice implicit in these deficiencies and cover ups. Sadly, they are not entirely surprising. We are slowly becoming aware of these all too familiar scandals. If there is one place which ought to be safe from corruption and cover ups, it is the judicial system, but sadly, this is simply not how things are. These are not isolated cases. Things need to change with stronger powers for independent review bodies and complaints processes which are effective. We need politicians to champion this cause.