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
As published
67A Defence to offence of contravening section 63(a) or (b): product not sold or supplied
(1) This section applies in a case where—
(a) a person (“the defendant”) is charged with an offence under section 67(2) of contravening section 63(a) or (b) in respect of a medicinal product; and
(b) the product is not sold or supplied in its adulterated state.
(2) Where the defendant is charged with contravening section 63(a), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that—
(a) the adulteration took place—
(i) at a registered pharmacy, or
(ii) in the course of the provision of a relevant pharmacy service;
(b) the defendant—
(i) was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession, or
(ii) was acting under the supervision of a person who was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession; and
(c) at the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant did not know that the product was being adulterated.
(3) Where the defendant is charged with contravening section 63(b), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that—
(a) the adulteration took place—
(i) at a registered pharmacy, or
(ii) in the course of the provision of a relevant pharmacy service;
(b) the person who adulterated the product—
(i) was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession, or
(ii) was acting under the supervision of a person who was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession; and
(c) at the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant did not know that the product had been adulterated.
Your change, as a redline
67A Defence to offence of contravening section 63(a) or (b): product not sold or supplied
(1) This section applies in a case where—
(a) a person (“the defendant”) is charged with an offence under section 67(2) of contravening section 63(a) or (b) in respect of a medicinal product; and
(b) the product is not sold or supplied in its adulterated state.
(2) Where the defendant is charged with contravening section 63(a), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that—
(a) the adulteration took place—
(i) at a registered pharmacy, or
(ii) in the course of the provision of a relevant pharmacy service;
(b) the defendant—
(i) was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession, or
(ii) was acting under the supervision of a person who was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession; and
(c) at the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant did not know that the product was being adulterated.
(3) Where the defendant is charged with contravening section 63(b), it is a defence for the defendant to prove that—
(a) the adulteration took place—
(i) at a registered pharmacy, or
(ii) in the course of the provision of a relevant pharmacy service;
(b) the person who adulterated the product—
(i) was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession, or
(ii) was acting under the supervision of a person who was a registrant acting in the course of his or her profession; and
(c) at the time of the alleged contravention, the defendant did not know that the product had been adulterated.
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.
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.