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

47.53 Application for approval for authorisation ...

(1) This rule applies where an applicant wants a magistrates’ court to make an order approving, under sections 32A and 32B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, an authorisation for— (a) the carrying out of directed surveillance, under section 28 of the 2000 Act; or (b) the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source, under section 29 of the Act. (2) The applicant must— (a) apply in writing and serve the application on the court officer; (b) attach the authorisation or notice which the applicant wants the court to approve; (c) attach such other material (if any) on which the applicant relies to satisfy the court— (i) as required by section 32A(3) and (4) of the 2000 Act, in relation to directed surveillance, or (ii) as required by section 32A(5) and (6), and, if relevant, section 43(6A), of the Act, in relation to a covert human intelligence source; and (d) propose the terms of the order. [Note. See also rule 47.5, under which the court may— (a) exercise its powers in the parties’ absence; and (b) consider an application made orally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under section 32A(3) and (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, on an application for an order approving an authorisation concerning directed surveillance (as defined in section 26 of the Act), the court must be satisfied that— (a) the person who granted the authorisation was entitled to do so; (b) the grant met any prescribed restrictions or conditions; (c) at the time the authorisation was granted there were reasonable grounds for believing that the surveillance described in the authorisation was— (i) necessary, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder, and (ii) proportionate to what was sought to be achieved by it; and (d) there remain reasonable grounds for believing those things, at the time the court considers the application. Under section 32A(5) and (6) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, on an application for an order approving an authorisation of the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source (as defined in section 26 of the Act), the court must be satisfied that— (a) the person who granted the authorisation was entitled to do so; (b) the grant met any prescribed restrictions or conditions; (c) at the time the authorisation was granted there were reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source described in the authorisation was— (i) necessary, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder, and (ii) proportionate to what was sought to be achieved by it; and (d) there remain reasonable grounds for believing those things, at the time the court considers the application. Under section 43(6A) of the 2000 Act, on an application to approve the renewal of such an authorisation the court in addition must— (a) be satisfied that, since the grant or latest renewal of the authorisation, a review has been carried out of the use made of the source, of the tasks given to him or her and of the information obtained; and (b) consider the results of that review. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2010 specifies the persons who are entitled to grant an authorisation concerning such surveillance or such a source, and for what purpose each may do so. Under section 32B(2) of the 2000 Act, the applicant is not required to give notice of an application to any person to whom the authorisation or notice relates, or to such a person’s legal representatives.]

Your change, as a redline

47.53 Application for approval for authorisation ...

(1) This rule applies where an applicant wants a magistrates’ court to make an order approving, under sections 32A and 32B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, an authorisation for— (a) the carrying out of directed surveillance, under section 28 of the 2000 Act; or (b) the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source, under section 29 of the Act. (2) The applicant must— (a) apply in writing and serve the application on the court officer; (b) attach the authorisation or notice which the applicant wants the court to approve; (c) attach such other material (if any) on which the applicant relies to satisfy the court— (i) as required by section 32A(3) and (4) of the 2000 Act, in relation to directed surveillance, or (ii) as required by section 32A(5) and (6), and, if relevant, section 43(6A), of the Act, in relation to a covert human intelligence source; and (d) propose the terms of the order. [Note. See also rule 47.5, under which the court may— (a) exercise its powers in the parties’ absence; and (b) consider an application made orally. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Under section 32A(3) and (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, on an application for an order approving an authorisation concerning directed surveillance (as defined in section 26 of the Act), the court must be satisfied that— (a) the person who granted the authorisation was entitled to do so; (b) the grant met any prescribed restrictions or conditions; (c) at the time the authorisation was granted there were reasonable grounds for believing that the surveillance described in the authorisation was— (i) necessary, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder, and (ii) proportionate to what was sought to be achieved by it; and (d) there remain reasonable grounds for believing those things, at the time the court considers the application. Under section 32A(5) and (6) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, on an application for an order approving an authorisation of the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source (as defined in section 26 of the Act), the court must be satisfied that— (a) the person who granted the authorisation was entitled to do so; (b) the grant met any prescribed restrictions or conditions; (c) at the time the authorisation was granted there were reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct or use of a covert human intelligence source described in the authorisation was— (i) necessary, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder, and (ii) proportionate to what was sought to be achieved by it; and (d) there remain reasonable grounds for believing those things, at the time the court considers the application. Under section 43(6A) of the 2000 Act, on an application to approve the renewal of such an authorisation the court in addition must— (a) be satisfied that, since the grant or latest renewal of the authorisation, a review has been carried out of the use made of the source, of the tasks given to him or her and of the information obtained; and (b) consider the results of that review. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) Order 2010 specifies the persons who are entitled to grant an authorisation concerning such surveillance or such a source, and for what purpose each may do so. Under section 32B(2) of the 2000 Act, the applicant is not required to give notice of an application to any person to whom the authorisation or notice relates, or to such a person’s legal representatives.]

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