Propose a change

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2025

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

What to do with it
As published

21.1 When this Part applies

This Part applies in a magistrates’ court and in the Crown Court where a party wants to introduce evidence of bad character within the meaning of section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [Note. Under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a person’s bad character means evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on that person’s part, other than evidence that— (a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence; or (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution. Under section 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is admissible if— (a) it is important explanatory evidence; (b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which— (i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and (ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole; or (c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible. The section explains requirements (a) and (b). Unless the parties agree to the evidence being admissible, it may not be introduced without the court’s permission. Under section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a defendant’s bad character is admissible if— (a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible; (b) the evidence is introduced by the defendant, or is given in answer to a question asked by the defendant in cross-examination which was intended to elicit that evidence; (c) it is important explanatory evidence; (d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution; (e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant; (f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or (g) the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character. Sections 102 to 106 of the Act supplement those requirements. The court must not admit evidence under (d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant, the court concludes that to do so would be unfair.]

Your change, as a redline

21.1 When this Part applies

This Part applies in a magistrates’ court and in the Crown Court where a party wants to introduce evidence of bad character within the meaning of section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. [Note. Under section 98 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a person’s bad character means evidence of, or of a disposition towards, misconduct on that person’s part, other than evidence that— (a) has to do with the alleged facts of the offence; or (b) is evidence of misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution. Under section 100(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a non-defendant’s bad character is admissible if— (a) it is important explanatory evidence; (b) it has substantial probative value in relation to a matter which— (i) is a matter in issue in the proceedings, and (ii) is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole; or (c) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible. The section explains requirements (a) and (b). Unless the parties agree to the evidence being admissible, it may not be introduced without the court’s permission. Under section 101(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, evidence of a defendant’s bad character is admissible if— (a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible; (b) the evidence is introduced by the defendant, or is given in answer to a question asked by the defendant in cross-examination which was intended to elicit that evidence; (c) it is important explanatory evidence; (d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution; (e) it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant; (f) it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant; or (g) the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character. Sections 102 to 106 of the Act supplement those requirements. The court must not admit evidence under (d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant, the court concludes that to do so would be unfair.]

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.

How this law is officially changed

Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.

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 it

Think 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.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds