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

24.5 Evidence of a witness in writing

(1) This rule applies where a party wants to introduce in evidence the written statement of a witness to which applies— (a) Part 16 (Written witness statements); (b) Part 19 (Expert evidence); or (c) Part 20 (Hearsay evidence). (2) That party must explain how the evidence is admissible unless it is— (a) evidence of fact within the direct knowledge of the person who made the written statement served under rule 16.4 (Written witness statement in evidence); (b) contained in an expert’s report served under rule 19.3 (Introduction of expert evidence); or (c) identified as hearsay in a notice served under rule 20.2 (Notice to introduce hearsay evidence). (3) If the court admits such evidence— (a) the court must read the statement; and (b) unless the court otherwise directs, if any member of the public, including any reporter, is present, each relevant part of the statement must be read or summarised aloud. [Note. See Parts 16, 19 and 20, and the other legislation to which those Parts apply. The admissibility of evidence that a party introduces is governed by rules of evidence. A written witness statement to which Part 16 applies may only be introduced in evidence if there has been no objection within the time limit to which rule 16.4 refers. An expert report to which Part 19 applies may only be introduced in evidence if it has been served in accordance with rule 19.3. Rule 20.3 provides for opposing the introduction of hearsay evidence, including such evidence in a document. Where a witness gives evidence in person, a previous written statement by that witness may be admissible as evidence under section 119 (Inconsistent statements) or under section 120 (Other previous statements of witnesses) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.]

Your change, as a redline

24.5 Evidence of a witness in writing

(1) This rule applies where a party wants to introduce in evidence the written statement of a witness to which applies— (a) Part 16 (Written witness statements); (b) Part 19 (Expert evidence); or (c) Part 20 (Hearsay evidence). (2) That party must explain how the evidence is admissible unless it is— (a) evidence of fact within the direct knowledge of the person who made the written statement served under rule 16.4 (Written witness statement in evidence); (b) contained in an expert’s report served under rule 19.3 (Introduction of expert evidence); or (c) identified as hearsay in a notice served under rule 20.2 (Notice to introduce hearsay evidence). (3) If the court admits such evidence— (a) the court must read the statement; and (b) unless the court otherwise directs, if any member of the public, including any reporter, is present, each relevant part of the statement must be read or summarised aloud. [Note. See Parts 16, 19 and 20, and the other legislation to which those Parts apply. The admissibility of evidence that a party introduces is governed by rules of evidence. A written witness statement to which Part 16 applies may only be introduced in evidence if there has been no objection within the time limit to which rule 16.4 refers. An expert report to which Part 19 applies may only be introduced in evidence if it has been served in accordance with rule 19.3. Rule 20.3 provides for opposing the introduction of hearsay evidence, including such evidence in a document. Where a witness gives evidence in person, a previous written statement by that witness may be admissible as evidence under section 119 (Inconsistent statements) or under section 120 (Other previous statements of witnesses) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.]

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