Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995
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
29 Proof of previous convictions.
(1) In section 162 of the 1975 Act (admissibility and proof of extract convictions in solemn proceedings), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (4) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (3) above, where proof of a previous conviction is competent in support of a substantive charge, any such conviction or an extract of it shall, if— (a) it purports to relate to the accused and to be signed by the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction; and (b) a copy of it has been served on the accused not less than 14 days before the trial diet, be sufficient evidence of the application of the conviction to the accused unless, within seven days of the date of service of the copy on him, he serves notice on the prosecutor that he denies that it applies to him. (5) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (4) above shall be served on the accused in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served the copy together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of service of the copy. . (2) In section 357 of that Act (previous convictions in summary proceedings), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (6) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (3) above, where proof of a previous conviction is competent in support of a substantive charge, any such conviction or an extract of it shall, if— (a) it purports to relate to the accused and to be signed by the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction; and (b) a copy of it has been served on the accused not less than 14 days before the trial diet, be sufficient evidence of the application of the conviction to the accused unless, within seven days of the date of service of the copy on him, he serves notice on the prosecutor that he denies that it applies to him. (7) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (6) above shall be served on the accused in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served the copy together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of service of the copy. .
29 Proof of previous convictions.
(1) In section 162 of the 1975 Act (admissibility and proof of extract convictions in solemn proceedings), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (4) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (3) above, where proof of a previous conviction is competent in support of a substantive charge, any such conviction or an extract of it shall, if— (a) it purports to relate to the accused and to be signed by the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction; and (b) a copy of it has been served on the accused not less than 14 days before the trial diet, be sufficient evidence of the application of the conviction to the accused unless, within seven days of the date of service of the copy on him, he serves notice on the prosecutor that he denies that it applies to him. (5) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (4) above shall be served on the accused in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served the copy together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of service of the copy. . (2) In section 357 of that Act (previous convictions in summary proceedings), after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections— (6) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (3) above, where proof of a previous conviction is competent in support of a substantive charge, any such conviction or an extract of it shall, if— (a) it purports to relate to the accused and to be signed by the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction; and (b) a copy of it has been served on the accused not less than 14 days before the trial diet, be sufficient evidence of the application of the conviction to the accused unless, within seven days of the date of service of the copy on him, he serves notice on the prosecutor that he denies that it applies to him. (7) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (6) above shall be served on the accused in such manner as may be prescribed by Act of Adjournal, and a written execution purporting to be signed by the person who served the copy together with, where appropriate, the relevant post office receipt shall be sufficient evidence of service of the copy. .
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.