{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02594810379241517, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.005988023952096, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Broader View of Justice?

Justice, like beauty, may also be in the eye of the beholder. For some individuals, whether or not an outcome, process and system are 'just' will depend on what is expected, available and perceived. From a societal perspective, however, the definition of 'justice' and determining the reach of the justice system as well as the location of just dispute settlement options have significant political, policy, social and funding implications. In this context, the framing of the civil justice system as inimical to the litigation and court system is no longer (if it ever was) part of the policy approach of governments within Australia. Justice is perceived as a much broader concept and the litigation system is more simply perceived as a part of this broader justice system. From this lens, judicial dispute adjudication is viewed as a smaller although critical dimension of the justice system that includes the far broader alternative dispute resolution (ADR) environment.