Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022
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
192 Football banning orders: requirement to make order on conviction etc
(1) In section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning order made on conviction of an offence), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute— (2) The court must make a banning order in respect of the offender unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so. (3) Where the court does not make a banning order it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so. (2) Section 22 of that Act (banning orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4). (3) In subsection (4), for the words following paragraph (b) substitute— must make a banning order in relation to the person, unless subsection (5) applies. (4) For subsections (5) and (5A) substitute— (5) This subsection applies if— (a) it appears to the court that the conviction of the corresponding offence in a country outside England and Wales is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in that country questioning the conviction, or (b) the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the corresponding offence or to the person which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make a banning order. (5A) Where the court does not make a banning order on the ground mentioned in subsection (5)(b) it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so. (5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence committed before the day appointed by regulations under section 208(1) for its coming into force.
192 Football banning orders: requirement to make order on conviction etc
(1) In section 14A of the Football Spectators Act 1989 (banning order made on conviction of an offence), for subsections (2) and (3) substitute— (2) The court must make a banning order in respect of the offender unless the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to do so. (3) Where the court does not make a banning order it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so. (2) Section 22 of that Act (banning orders arising out of offences outside England and Wales) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) and (4). (3) In subsection (4), for the words following paragraph (b) substitute— must make a banning order in relation to the person, unless subsection (5) applies. (4) For subsections (5) and (5A) substitute— (5) This subsection applies if— (a) it appears to the court that the conviction of the corresponding offence in a country outside England and Wales is the subject of proceedings in a court of law in that country questioning the conviction, or (b) the court considers that there are particular circumstances relating to the corresponding offence or to the person which would make it unjust in all the circumstances to make a banning order. (5A) Where the court does not make a banning order on the ground mentioned in subsection (5)(b) it must state in open court the reasons for not doing so. (5) This section does not apply in relation to an offence committed before the day appointed by regulations under section 208(1) for its coming into force.
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.