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

47.62 Application containing information withheld from a respondent

(1) This rule applies where an application to extend a moratorium period includes an application to withhold information from a respondent. (2) The applicant must— (a) omit that information from any part of the application that is served on the respondent; (b) mark the other part to show that, unless the court otherwise directs, it is only for the court; and (c) in that other part, explain the grounds for believing that the disclosure of that information would have one or more of the following results— (i) evidence of an offence would be interfered with or harmed, (ii) the gathering of information about the possible commission of an offence would be interfered with, (iii) a person would be interfered with or physically injured, (iv) the recovery of property under this Act would be hindered, or (v) national security would be put at risk. (3) At any hearing of an application to which this rule applies— (a) the court must first determine the application to withhold information, in the respondent’s absence and that of any legal representative of the respondent; and (b) if the court allows the application to withhold information, then in the following sequence— (i) the court must consider representations first by the applicant and then by the respondent, in the presence of both, and (ii) the court may consider further representations by the applicant in the respondent’s absence and that of any legal representative of the respondent. (4) If the court refuses an application to withhold information from the respondent, the applicant may withdraw the application to extend the moratorium period. [Note. See section 336B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.]

Your change, as a redline

47.62 Application containing information withheld from a respondent

(1) This rule applies where an application to extend a moratorium period includes an application to withhold information from a respondent. (2) The applicant must— (a) omit that information from any part of the application that is served on the respondent; (b) mark the other part to show that, unless the court otherwise directs, it is only for the court; and (c) in that other part, explain the grounds for believing that the disclosure of that information would have one or more of the following results— (i) evidence of an offence would be interfered with or harmed, (ii) the gathering of information about the possible commission of an offence would be interfered with, (iii) a person would be interfered with or physically injured, (iv) the recovery of property under this Act would be hindered, or (v) national security would be put at risk. (3) At any hearing of an application to which this rule applies— (a) the court must first determine the application to withhold information, in the respondent’s absence and that of any legal representative of the respondent; and (b) if the court allows the application to withhold information, then in the following sequence— (i) the court must consider representations first by the applicant and then by the respondent, in the presence of both, and (ii) the court may consider further representations by the applicant in the respondent’s absence and that of any legal representative of the respondent. (4) If the court refuses an application to withhold information from the respondent, the applicant may withdraw the application to extend the moratorium period. [Note. See section 336B of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.]

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