Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010
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
5 Enabling destruction
(1) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(e) to show that P had the prohibited munition in P's possession for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (2) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(f) to show that P transferred the prohibited munition for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (3) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(g) to show that P made the arrangements for the transfer of the prohibited munition for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (4) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(c) to show that— (a) the acquisition of the prohibited munition was by means of a transfer made for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed, and (b) P acquired the prohibited munition for that purpose. (5) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(d) to show that — (a) at the time when P made the arrangements for the acquisition of the prohibited munition, P had reasonable cause to believe that the acquisition would be by means of a transfer made for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed, and (b) P made the arrangements for that purpose. (6) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(2) of assisting, encouraging or inducing any other person to engage in any conduct to show that, at the time of the assistance, encouragement or inducement, P had reasonable cause to believe that the other person would have a defence in respect of the conduct by virtue of any of subsections (1) to (5).
5 Enabling destruction
(1) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(e) to show that P had the prohibited munition in P's possession for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (2) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(f) to show that P transferred the prohibited munition for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (3) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(g) to show that P made the arrangements for the transfer of the prohibited munition for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed. (4) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(c) to show that— (a) the acquisition of the prohibited munition was by means of a transfer made for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed, and (b) P acquired the prohibited munition for that purpose. (5) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(1)(d) to show that — (a) at the time when P made the arrangements for the acquisition of the prohibited munition, P had reasonable cause to believe that the acquisition would be by means of a transfer made for the purpose of enabling it to be destroyed, and (b) P made the arrangements for that purpose. (6) It is a defence for a person (P) charged with an offence under section 2(2) of assisting, encouraging or inducing any other person to engage in any conduct to show that, at the time of the assistance, encouragement or inducement, P had reasonable cause to believe that the other person would have a defence in respect of the conduct by virtue of any of subsections (1) to (5).
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.