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
55 Court of criminal division.
(1) This section relates to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal; and in this section “court” means a court of that division.
(2) Subject to subsection (6),a court shall be duly constituted for the purpose of exercising any of its jurisdiction if it consists of an uneven number of judges not less than three.
(3) Where—
(a) part of any proceedings before a court has been heard by an uneven number of judges greater than three; and
(b) one or more members of the court are unable to continue,
the court shall remain duly constituted for the purpose of those proceedings so long as the number of members (whether even or uneven) is not reduced to less than three.
(4) Subject to subsection (6),a court shall, if it consists of two judges, be duly constituted for every purpose except—
(a) determining an appeal against—
(i) conviction; or
(ii) a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity; or
(iii) a finding ... under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (unfitness to plead) that a person is under a disability;
(aa) reviewing sentencing under Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;
(b) determining an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; and
(c) refusing an application for leave to appeal to the criminal division against conviction or any such verdict or finding as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii), other than an application which has been refused by a single judge.
(5) Where an appeal has been heard by a court consisting of an even number of judges and the members of the court are equally divided, the case shall be re-argued before and determined by an uneven number of judges not less than three.
(6) A court shall not be duly constituted if it includes more than one Circuit judge acting as a judge of the court under section 9.
Your change, as a redline
55 Court of criminal division.
(1) This section relates to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal; and in this section “court” means a court of that division.
(2) Subject to subsection (6),a court shall be duly constituted for the purpose of exercising any of its jurisdiction if it consists of an uneven number of judges not less than three.
(3) Where—
(a) part of any proceedings before a court has been heard by an uneven number of judges greater than three; and
(b) one or more members of the court are unable to continue,
the court shall remain duly constituted for the purpose of those proceedings so long as the number of members (whether even or uneven) is not reduced to less than three.
(4) Subject to subsection (6),a court shall, if it consists of two judges, be duly constituted for every purpose except—
(a) determining an appeal against—
(i) conviction; or
(ii) a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity; or
(iii) a finding ... under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (unfitness to plead) that a person is under a disability;
(aa) reviewing sentencing under Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988;
(b) determining an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court; and
(c) refusing an application for leave to appeal to the criminal division against conviction or any such verdict or finding as is mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) or (iii), other than an application which has been refused by a single judge.
(5) Where an appeal has been heard by a court consisting of an even number of judges and the members of the court are equally divided, the case shall be re-argued before and determined by an uneven number of judges not less than three.
(6) A court shall not be duly constituted if it includes more than one Circuit judge acting as a judge of the court under section 9.
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.