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
246 Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted
(1) The Extradition Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 20 (case where person has been convicted: category 1 territories)—
(a) in subsection (5), for the words from “the person” to the end substitute
any of the following applies—
(a) the person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial;
(b) the person would be so entitled unless a court in the territory concerned were to decide that they deliberately absented themselves from their trial;
(c) the person was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) but expressly waived that entitlement;
(d) having been informed that they were entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), the person failed to exercise that entitlement before the end of the period permitted for exercising it.
;
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person convicted at a trial at which they were legally represented (but not present in person) is to be treated as having been convicted in their presence.
;
(c) in subsection (8), in the words before paragraph (a)—
(i) after “constitute” insert “(or would have constituted)”;
(ii) after “have” insert “(or would have had)”.
(3) In section 85 (case where person has been convicted: category 2 territories)—
(a) in subsection (5), for the words from “the person” to the end substitute
any of the following applies—
(a) the person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial;
(b) the person would be so entitled unless a court in the territory concerned were to decide that they deliberately absented themselves from their trial;
(c) the person was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) but expressly waived that entitlement;
(d) having been informed that they were entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), the person failed to exercise that entitlement before the end of the period permitted for exercising it.
;
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person convicted at a trial at which they were legally represented (but not present in person) is to be treated as having been convicted in their presence.
;
(c) in subsection (8), in the words before paragraph (a)—
(i) after “constitute” insert “(or would have constituted)”;
(ii) after “have” insert “(or would have had)”.
Your change, as a redline
246 Extradition: cases where a person has been convicted
(1) The Extradition Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 20 (case where person has been convicted: category 1 territories)—
(a) in subsection (5), for the words from “the person” to the end substitute
any of the following applies—
(a) the person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial;
(b) the person would be so entitled unless a court in the territory concerned were to decide that they deliberately absented themselves from their trial;
(c) the person was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) but expressly waived that entitlement;
(d) having been informed that they were entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), the person failed to exercise that entitlement before the end of the period permitted for exercising it.
;
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person convicted at a trial at which they were legally represented (but not present in person) is to be treated as having been convicted in their presence.
;
(c) in subsection (8), in the words before paragraph (a)—
(i) after “constitute” insert “(or would have constituted)”;
(ii) after “have” insert “(or would have had)”.
(3) In section 85 (case where person has been convicted: category 2 territories)—
(a) in subsection (5), for the words from “the person” to the end substitute
any of the following applies—
(a) the person would be entitled to a retrial or (on appeal) to a review amounting to a retrial;
(b) the person would be so entitled unless a court in the territory concerned were to decide that they deliberately absented themselves from their trial;
(c) the person was entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) but expressly waived that entitlement;
(d) having been informed that they were entitled as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), the person failed to exercise that entitlement before the end of the period permitted for exercising it.
;
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
(7A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person convicted at a trial at which they were legally represented (but not present in person) is to be treated as having been convicted in their presence.
;
(c) in subsection (8), in the words before paragraph (a)—
(i) after “constitute” insert “(or would have constituted)”;
(ii) after “have” insert “(or would have had)”.
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.