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
As published
174 Standard of proof
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 103A(3) (sexual harm prevention orders: applications and grounds)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—
(b) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that since the appropriate date the defendant has acted in one or more of the ways alleged by the person making the application, and
(c) the court is satisfied that the defendant having acted in such a way makes it necessary to make a sexual harm prevention order, for the purpose of—
(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
(3) In section 122A (sexual risk orders: applications, grounds and effect), for subsection (6) substitute—
(6) On an application under subsection (1), the court may make a sexual risk order if—
(a) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, done one or more of the acts of a sexual nature alleged by the person making the application, and
(b) the court is satisfied that as a result of the defendant acting in such a way it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of—
(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
Your change, as a redline
174 Standard of proof
(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 103A(3) (sexual harm prevention orders: applications and grounds)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) for paragraph (b) substitute—
(b) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that since the appropriate date the defendant has acted in one or more of the ways alleged by the person making the application, and
(c) the court is satisfied that the defendant having acted in such a way makes it necessary to make a sexual harm prevention order, for the purpose of—
(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from sexual harm from the defendant, or
(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
(3) In section 122A (sexual risk orders: applications, grounds and effect), for subsection (6) substitute—
(6) On an application under subsection (1), the court may make a sexual risk order if—
(a) the court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Part, done one or more of the acts of a sexual nature alleged by the person making the application, and
(b) the court is satisfied that as a result of the defendant acting in such a way it is necessary to make such an order for the purpose of—
(i) protecting the public or any particular members of the public from harm from the defendant, or
(ii) protecting children or vulnerable adults generally, or any particular children or vulnerable adults, from harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom.
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.
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.