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.

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.

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.

In R v Jogee [2016] UKSC 8, the UK Supreme Court fundamentally changed the law of accessorial liability when it decided that the principles of joint enterprise had been misinterpreted for over 30 years. The Court abolished the head of liability known as parasitic accessory liability and replaced it with (re-stated) principles of assisting and encouraging. The judgment, widely reported and hailed as a 'moment of genuine legal history', sent shock waves around England and Wales as well as other common law jurisdictions that still operate 'parasitic' or 'extended' joint enterprise principles, and raised the hopes of hundreds of prisoners here and elsewhere who had been convicted under joint enterprise. This collection examines Jogee, subsequent Court of Appeal decisions and case law from other jurisdictions that re-considered their own joint enterprise principles in the wake of Jogee. Its chapters are authored by scholars and practitioners, all experts in the area of complicity, but each with their own experiences and views on the issues under debate. The result is the first comprehensive analysis of the implications of Jogee. The present volume is not just a source of reference for academics and practitioners; its aim is more ambitious in that it seeks to chart the way forward and to suggest solutions to problems created by Jogee for criminal law theory and practice.

The Concentrate Q&A series is the result of a collaboration involving hundreds of law students and lecturers from universities across the UK. Each book in this series offers you better support and a greater chance to succeed on your law course than any of the competitors. 'A sure-fire way to get a 1st class result' (Naomi M, Coventry University) 'My grades have dramatically improved since I started using the OUP Q&A guides' (Glen Sylvester, Bournemouth University) 'These first class answers will transform you into a first class student' (Ali Mohamed, University of Hertfordshire) 'I can't think of better revision support for my study' (Quynh Anh Thi Le, University of Warwick) 'I would strongly recommend Q&A guides. They have vastly improved my structuring of exam answers and helped me identify key components of a high quality answer' (Hayden Roach, Bournemouth University) '100% would recommend. Makes you feel like you will pass with flying colours' (Elysia Marie Vaughan, University of Hertfordshire) 'My fellow students rave about this book' (Octavia Knapper, Lancaster University) 'The best Q&A books that I've read; the content is exceptional' (Wendy Chinenye Akaigwe, London Metropolitan University) 'I would not hesitate to recommend this book to a friend' (Blessing Denhere, Coventry University)

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.

'Criminal Law' is written with the needs of the student foremost in mind to provide, more than ever, as modern and as comprehensive an exposition of the criminal law as he or she could possibly require.