Investigatory Powers Act 2016
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
210 Failure to approve specific BPD warrant issued in urgent case
(1) This section applies where under section 209(3) a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the decision to issue a warrant. (2) The head of the intelligence service to whom the warrant was addressed must, so far as is reasonably practicable, secure that anything in the process of being done in reliance on the warrant stops as soon as possible. (3) The Judicial Commissioner may— (a) direct that the whole or part of a bulk personal dataset retained in reliance on the warrant is destroyed; (b) impose conditions as to the use or retention of the whole or part of any such bulk personal dataset. (4) The Judicial Commissioner— (a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Judicial Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (3), and (b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)). (5) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (4)— (a) the Secretary of State; (b) the head of the intelligence service to whom the warrant was addressed. (6) The Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to review a decision made by any other Judicial Commissioner under subsection (3). (7) On a review under subsection (6), the Investigatory Powers Commissioner may— (a) confirm the Judicial Commissioner's decision, or (b) make a fresh determination. (8) An intelligence service is not to be regarded as in breach of section 200(1) or (2) where it retains or (as the case may be) examines a bulk personal dataset in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (3)(b). (9) Nothing in this section or section 209 affects the lawfulness of— (a) anything done in reliance on the warrant before it ceases to have effect; (b) if anything is in the process of being done in reliance on the warrant when it ceases to have effect— (i) anything done before that thing could be stopped, or (ii) anything done that it is not reasonably practicable to stop.
210 Failure to approve specific BPD warrant issued in urgent case
(1) This section applies where under section 209(3) a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the decision to issue a warrant. (2) The head of the intelligence service to whom the warrant was addressed must, so far as is reasonably practicable, secure that anything in the process of being done in reliance on the warrant stops as soon as possible. (3) The Judicial Commissioner may— (a) direct that the whole or part of a bulk personal dataset retained in reliance on the warrant is destroyed; (b) impose conditions as to the use or retention of the whole or part of any such bulk personal dataset. (4) The Judicial Commissioner— (a) may require an affected party to make representations about how the Judicial Commissioner should exercise any function under subsection (3), and (b) must have regard to any such representations made by an affected party (whether or not as a result of a requirement imposed under paragraph (a)). (5) Each of the following is an “affected party” for the purposes of subsection (4)— (a) the Secretary of State; (b) the head of the intelligence service to whom the warrant was addressed. (6) The Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to review a decision made by any other Judicial Commissioner under subsection (3). (7) On a review under subsection (6), the Investigatory Powers Commissioner may— (a) confirm the Judicial Commissioner's decision, or (b) make a fresh determination. (8) An intelligence service is not to be regarded as in breach of section 200(1) or (2) where it retains or (as the case may be) examines a bulk personal dataset in accordance with conditions imposed under subsection (3)(b). (9) Nothing in this section or section 209 affects the lawfulness of— (a) anything done in reliance on the warrant before it ceases to have effect; (b) if anything is in the process of being done in reliance on the warrant when it ceases to have effect— (i) anything done before that thing could be stopped, or (ii) anything done that it is not reasonably practicable to stop.
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.
Sign in to file itThink 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.