The Justice Committee believes The Treasury should seriously question whether taxpayers' money is used in ways most likely to reduce future crime and victimisation and must develop a longer term strategy for the use of resources tied up currently in the criminal justice system. All parts of the criminal justice system have had to cope with significant spending cuts, yet it appears that the Government has shied away from using the need to make those cuts to re-evaluate how and where money is spent. The Committee welcomes the development of various cross-Government initiatives to deal with the sources of crime, such as the Troubled Families Programme. But resources committed are tiny compared to the costs of crime to society. Each year: violent crime, 44% of which is alcohol related, costs almost £30 billion; crime perpetrated by people who had conduct problems in childhood costs around £60 billion; drug related crime costs £13.3 billion; anti-social behaviour related to alcohol abuse costs £11 billion. The costs of preventative investment further upstream are often relatively small yet the Committee's evidence highlights the clear benefits of collective ownership, pooled funding and joint priorities that have been facilitated by the shift of power in this field from Whitehall to local communities. The greatest problem identified by the Committee is the lack of rigorous assessment of where taxpayers' money can be most effectively spent in cutting crime. A more evidence-based approach is needed.

This report assesses the decision to apply sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) to mesothelioma compensation claims. These sections prevent winning claimants recovering from defendants success fees charged by their lawyers or premiums for insurance against having to meet defendants' costs (after the event, or ATE, insurance). They applied to all other personal injury claims since April 2013, but section 48 of LASPO required Ministers to undertake a review before they could be brought into effect for claims relating to mesothelioma. The section 48 review was not prepared in a thorough and even-handed manner and a fresh consultation should be undertaken. The Government was not reconciled to the concession it was forced to make to exempt mesothelioma cases from its provisions, and determined to review the exemption as soon as it could. In its haste the Government failed to ensure that relevant information, such as a cost-benefit analysis of the changes, was available to interested parties. It also shoehorned part of its section 48 review into a wider consultation on changes to the mesothelioma claims process. The Committee also urges expedition of the primary legislation needed to bring into effect the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, which will enable a claim to be issued against an insurer without a judgment first having had to be obtained against an insolvent insured party. The Ministry of Justice should also work in tandem with the Department of Health to reduce delays in the production of medical records of mesothelioma victims.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up in 1997, by the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. The CCRC investigates alleged miscarriages of justice, post-conviction and post-appeal, and has the power to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The Committee held a one-off evidence session on the work of the CCRC in January 2014, and then sought some views on the issues raised. The Committee subsequently decided to hold an inquiry on the CCRC, and launched it with a general call for evidence. The "real possibility" test, which requires that for a referral to be made there must be a real possibility that the conviction or sentence would not be upheld on appeal, was one of the most controversial aspects of the CCRC. The Committee found that criticisms broadly fell into one of three areas: that the test itself is wrong; that the test is being applied incorrectly by the CCRC; or that the Court of Appeal's approach to criminal appeals is overly restrictive. The Committee's considers each of these areas in turn. Critics of the test felt that it inherently prevents the CCRC from being truly independent of the Court of Appeal. The Committee concludes that any change would have to be in light of a change to the Court of Appeal's grounds for allowing appeals.

The Justice Committee held a pre-appoointment hearing with the preferred candidate, Mr Paul McDowell. This report contains the oral evidence from that meeting and the Committee approves his appointment. The report also contains correspondence between the Chair of the Committee and the Secretary of State, the job advertisement, the person specification used in the recruitment process, and Mr McDowell's curriculum vitae.

Since the reforms came into effect, there has been a significant underspend in the civil legal aid budget because the MoJ failed to ensure that those who are eligible for legal aid are able to access it. This has been partly been due to a lack of public information, including information about the Civil Legal Advice telephone gateway for debt advice, and the Committee recommends that the MoJ take prompt steps to redress this. The Committee also concludes that the exceptional cases funding scheme has not worked as Parliament intended. It was supposed to act as a safety net, protecting access to justice for the most vulnerable. The Committee expects the MoJ to react rapidly to ensure that the scheme fulfils Parliament's intention that the most vulnerable people are able to access legal assistance. The Government's reforms have led to an increase in the number and a change in the profile of litigants in person: increasingly these are people who have no choice but to represent themselves, and who may thus have difficulty in doing so effectively: although many tribunals are accustomed to dealing with unrepresented litigants the courts have to expend more resources in order to assist them. The MoJ has not been able to demonstrate that it has achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Although significant savings have been achieved, efforts to target legal aid at those who most need it have focused on intervention aimed at the point after a crisis has already developed, rather than on prevention.

In this Report the Committee returns to follow up the Report which was published in January 2012 (ISBN 9780215040589) on the operation of the common-law doctrine of joint enterprise, which forms part of the criminal law relating to secondary liability. The types of cases considered are those in which P and D participate together in one crime and in the course of it P commits a second crime which D had foreseen he might commit: in such cases, under joint enterprise, D may also be charged and convicted of the second offence. The Committee considers in this report the impact of the guidance for prosecutors in joint enterprise cases which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) produced in response to one of the 2012 recommendations, taking into account statistics on murder and manslaughter cases with two or more defendants in 2012 and 2013 which the CPS also produced. The Committee concludes that the level of concern about the operation of joint enterprise, especially in murder cases, is such that it is no longer acceptable for the main authorities in the criminal justice system to give such limited attention and priority to the recording and collation of information and reommends that the Ministry of Justice establish a system to enable production of regular statistics on joint enterprise prosecutions, convictions and appeals. This report sets out a range of other concerns and questions which continue to be raised about the application of the doctrine, including the scale of use of joint enterprise, the question as to whether joint enterprise is being used as a social policy tool, the high number of Black and mixed race young men who have been convicted of joint enterprise offences. The evidence heard in this second inquiry into the subject has increased disquiet at the functioning of the law on joint enterprise and the Committee is no longer of the view that it is satisfactory for a consultation to be held on the Law Commission's previous proposals on joint enterprise.

Manorial rights are certain rights which were retained by lords of the manor in England and Wales when land became freehold in the early 20th century, and can include rights to mines and some minerals, sporting rights such as hunting, shooting and fishing, and rights to hold fairs and markets. In the past such rights were not required to be detailed on theregister of title, but they remained overriding - that is they bound the owner of the affected and even though they may not have known about the rights. Changes made through the Land Registration Act 2002 sought to increase the transparency and knowledge of such rights by requiring that they be registered and removing their overriding status. This Act specified a deadline - October 2013 - by which such rights should be registered to ensure they could not be lost.