Build a case and a campaign from the same records.
When a matter lands, you need two things at once: the strongest comparable holdings to shape the legal approach, and a way to turn the matter into public pressure. This page walks both, and shows where they meet. Every record is a lead to its source, not the source.
The frame
A case and a campaign are one strategy on two tracks.
The law track finds what courts have already held and what it cost or won. The movement track finds who has organised on the same issue and which tactics moved it. Run them apart and each is weaker. Run them together and the case gives the campaign its facts, while the campaign gives the case its pressure. The hinge between them is the issue.
Track 1 · the law
Build the legal approach
Find comparable holdings and outcomes, read the source, check coverage, and assemble a cited shortlist.
Go to the trackTrack 2 · the movement
Build the campaign off the case
Borrow advocacy playbooks, map who is already organising, and connect the campaign back to the case.
Go to the trackBefore you trust anything
Read the trust state on every record.
Most records in the corpus were found by a machine and link-backed to a source, but not yet read by a human. The badge tells you which is which. The most valuable catch a lawyer can make is an unreviewed record presented as if it were settled law.
A reviewer opened the source and confirmed the record. Its holding and outcome are stated in the answer text.
Checked against its source of record. Treat as a strong lead, then read the judgment and confirm whether human review is complete.
Machine-found and link-backed, not yet human-reviewed. Its holding is withheld from the answer text. Open the source before relying on it.
One caution that matters in a hearing: source checked does not mean good law. It means the record matches its source. Whether the holding still stands, or was overruled or distinguished, is your judgment to make from the judgment itself.
Track 1 · build the legal approach
From a matter to a cited approach, in six moves.
- 1
Frame the issue in one sentence
State the legal question your matter turns on. Non-refoulement on transfer to a third country. The lawfulness of indefinite detention. The duty owed at sea. The sharper the issue, the better the records that come back.
- 2
Ask the Matrix for comparables
Ask retrieves real cases and names their holdings and outcomes. Read the confidence band, the cited records, and the trust badge on each. Holdings and outcomes appear in the answer only for human-reviewed and source-checked cases; for a needs-review case, open the record yourself.
- Has a court found that transferring an asylum seeker to a third country breaches non-refoulement?Third-country transfer and the duty not to return.
- What cases challenge the arbitrary or indefinite detention of people seeking asylum?Detention, liberty, and proportionality.
- Which courts have ruled on pushbacks or interception of asylum seekers at sea?Interdiction, rescue, and jurisdiction at the border.
- 3
Open the case profile and the source
Each cited record links to its profile and its authoritative link. Read the holding, check the court and year, then follow the link to the judgment of record. The profile is the index. The judgment is the authority.
Browse cases - 4
Read the issue playbook
An issue profile weaves the law, the movement, the people, and the playbook for a single strategic question into one place. It is the fastest way to see whether your matter sits inside an existing line of argument or opens a new one.
Open issues - 5
Check where the corpus is thin
The records are strong on European and cross-border jurisprudence and thinner on Australian and Pacific matters. Treat a quiet jurisdiction as a gap to research the old way, not as an absence of law. Use Explore to see the spread by jurisdiction and strength.
Filter in Explore - 6
Assemble and export a cited shortlist
Copy the citation from each record you keep, then export the set as CSV or JSON for your brief. What leaves the Matrix is a list of leads with sources attached, ready for your own legal judgment.
Export the corpus
Track 2 · build the campaign off the case
Litigation makes the moment. The campaign makes the pressure.
A judgment lands on a single day. A campaign carries it for months. When the two share the same cited spine, the public story stays accurate and the legal argument stays visible. Each campaign in the Matrix is written as a playbook another organiser can borrow.
- 1
Borrow a comparable campaign
Browse the campaigns directory by issue, tactic, region, and outcome. Each entry names the lead organisations, the goals, the notable tactics, and where it landed. Find the closest fight to yours and read how it was run.
Open campaigns - 2
Map who is already organising
The issue playbook for your matter shows the movement and the people alongside the law. Before you start a new coalition, see who already holds the ground on this issue.
Open issues - 3
Build the public story honestly
Lived-experience stories in the Matrix are consent-gated and shown only where consent allows. Keep the public narrative inside what the records can support and what people agreed to share. The research-not-legal-advice boundary holds in public as much as in chambers.
- 4
Connect the campaign back to the case
Link the campaign to the case it arose from so the two reinforce each other on the record. A reviewer or funder who opens either one can then see the whole strategy, law and movement together.
Where the tracks cross
The issue is the hinge.
Case
A holding, an outcome, a source of record.
Issue
Law, movement, people, and playbook in one place.
Campaign
A borrowable playbook with tactics and outcomes.
Read it in either direction. A case opens onto its issue, and the issue holds the campaigns that grew from the same fight. A campaign points back to the cases that give it authority. Walk the hinge and you carry the whole strategy.
Known limits, said plainly
What this will not do for you.
It is not legal advice
It is a research index. Read the judgment of record and apply your own legal judgment before acting.
It does not track overrulings
A record can be checked against its source and still be bad law today. Check the subsequent history yourself.
Coverage is uneven
Strong on European and cross-border jurisprudence, thin on Australian and Pacific matters. A quiet jurisdiction is a gap, not an answer.
Citations are not formatted
Records are not styled to OSCOLA, AGLC, or Bluebook. Copy the citation and format it in your own house style.
Playbooks are curated, not live
Campaign entries are a strategic sample written up by hand, not a complete survey of every campaign run.
People are thin on purpose
Lived-experience content is consent-gated and sparse by design. Absence is not the absence of people, it is the presence of consent.
Run it
Take it to a real matter.
Start a matter in Ask
Open Ask with the refugee lens and a worked question. Replace it with your own and read the cited records.
OpenSearch the corpus
Filter cases, campaigns, and evidence by jurisdiction, issue, outcome, and source strength.
OpenSend a missing source
Add a case, campaign, or correction. It enters the review queue. Nothing publishes without curator approval.
OpenTell us where it would mislead
The most useful feedback names a record that reads as stronger than its source. That is the catch we most want.
OpenThis is a research and reference resource, not legal advice. Summaries are prepared from public sources and may be incomplete or out of date. Always read the original judgment or document and consult a qualified lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction before acting.
Narrative summaries on this page are licensed CC BY-NC 4.0. Reuse them with attribution to JusticeHub for non-commercial purposes. Original judgments and source documents remain under their own terms; follow the authoritative link for the source of record.