Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972
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
36 Admissibility of evidence given in convention country.
(A1) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1) shall— (a) in any proceedings in the family court arising out of an application to which section 27A(1) of this Act applies or an application made by any person for the variation or revocation of a registered order, or (b) in proceedings on appeal from proceedings within paragraph (a), be admissible as evidence of any fact stated to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings. (1) The documents referred to in subsections (A1) and (1A) are— (a) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to set out or summarise evidence given in proceedings in a court in a convention country; ... (b) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to set out or summarise evidence taken in such a country for the purpose of proceedings in a court in the United Kingdom under this Part of this Act, whether in response to a request made on behalf of such a court or otherwise; ... (c) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to have been received in evidence in proceedings in a court in such a country, or to be a copy of a document so received, (1A) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1) shall, in any proceedings in a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland or in, or remitted from, a sheriff court arising out of ... an application to which section 28C(1) of this Act applies, an application received by the Secretary of State as mentioned in section 31(1) of this Act or an application made by any person for the variation or revocation of a registered order or in proceedings on appeal from any such proceedings, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings. (2) A document purporting to set out or summarise evidence given as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, or taken as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, shall be deemed to be duly authenticated for the purposes of that subsection if the document purports to be certified by the judge, magistrate or other person before whom the evidence was given or, as the case may be, by whom it was taken, to be the original document containing or recording, or, as the case may be, summarising, that evidence or a true copy of that document. (3) A document purporting to have been received in evidence as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, or to be a copy of a document so received, shall be deemed to be duly authenticated for the purposes of that subsection if the document purports to be certified by a judge, magistrate or officer of the court in question to have been, or to be a true copy of a document which has been, so received. (4) It shall not be necessary in any such proceedings to prove the signature or official position of the person appearing to have given such a certificate. (5) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the admission in evidence of any document which is admissible in evidence apart from this section.
36 Admissibility of evidence given in convention country.
(A1) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1) shall— (a) in any proceedings in the family court arising out of an application to which section 27A(1) of this Act applies or an application made by any person for the variation or revocation of a registered order, or (b) in proceedings on appeal from proceedings within paragraph (a), be admissible as evidence of any fact stated to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings. (1) The documents referred to in subsections (A1) and (1A) are— (a) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to set out or summarise evidence given in proceedings in a court in a convention country; ... (b) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to set out or summarise evidence taken in such a country for the purpose of proceedings in a court in the United Kingdom under this Part of this Act, whether in response to a request made on behalf of such a court or otherwise; ... (c) a document, duly authenticated, which purports to have been received in evidence in proceedings in a court in such a country, or to be a copy of a document so received, (1A) A statement contained in a document mentioned in subsection (1) shall, in any proceedings in a magistrates’ court in Northern Ireland or in, or remitted from, a sheriff court arising out of ... an application to which section 28C(1) of this Act applies, an application received by the Secretary of State as mentioned in section 31(1) of this Act or an application made by any person for the variation or revocation of a registered order or in proceedings on appeal from any such proceedings, be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein to the same extent as oral evidence of that fact is admissible in those proceedings. (2) A document purporting to set out or summarise evidence given as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above, or taken as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above, shall be deemed to be duly authenticated for the purposes of that subsection if the document purports to be certified by the judge, magistrate or other person before whom the evidence was given or, as the case may be, by whom it was taken, to be the original document containing or recording, or, as the case may be, summarising, that evidence or a true copy of that document. (3) A document purporting to have been received in evidence as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above, or to be a copy of a document so received, shall be deemed to be duly authenticated for the purposes of that subsection if the document purports to be certified by a judge, magistrate or officer of the court in question to have been, or to be a true copy of a document which has been, so received. (4) It shall not be necessary in any such proceedings to prove the signature or official position of the person appearing to have given such a certificate. (5) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the admission in evidence of any document which is admissible in evidence apart from this section.
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.