Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 (repealed 25.8.1996)
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
51 Assumptions as to benefit and value of proceeds.
(1) The Crown Court shall, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if he has, of assessing the value of his proceeds of those activities, make the following assumptions, except to the extent that any of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect in the defendant’s case— (a) that any property appearing to the court— (i) to have been held by him at any time since his conviction; or (ii) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him, was obtained by him, at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it, as a result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him; (b) that any expenditure of his since the beginning of that period was met out of the proceeds of such activities engaged in by him; and (c) that, for the purpose of valuing any property obtained or assumed to have been obtained by him at any time as a result of such activities, he obtained the property free of any other interests in it. (2) Where the court decides that any assumption mentioned in subsection (1) above is incorrect in the defendant’s case it shall state its reasons for that decision. [(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51 Assumptions as to benefit and value of proceeds.
(1) The Crown Court shall, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has benefited from terrorist-related activities and, if he has, of assessing the value of his proceeds of those activities, make the following assumptions, except to the extent that any of the assumptions are shown to be incorrect in the defendant’s case— (a) that any property appearing to the court— (i) to have been held by him at any time since his conviction; or (ii) to have been transferred to him at any time since the beginning of the period of six years ending when the proceedings were instituted against him, was obtained by him, at the earliest time at which he appears to the court to have held it, as a result of terrorist-related activities engaged in by him; (b) that any expenditure of his since the beginning of that period was met out of the proceeds of such activities engaged in by him; and (c) that, for the purpose of valuing any property obtained or assumed to have been obtained by him at any time as a result of such activities, he obtained the property free of any other interests in it. (2) Where the court decides that any assumption mentioned in subsection (1) above is incorrect in the defendant’s case it shall state its reasons for that decision. [(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.