Extradition Act 2003
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
11 Bars to extradition
(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether the person’s extradition to the category 1 territory is barred by reason of— (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (aa) absence of prosecution decision; (b) extraneous considerations; (c) the passage of time; (d) the person’s age; (e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) speciality; (g) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another category 1 territory; (h) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from a non-category 1 territory. (i) the person's earlier transfer to the United Kingdom by the International Criminal Court. (j) forum. (1A) But the judge is to decide whether the person's extradition is barredby reason of — (a) absence of prosecution decision, or (b) forum, only in a case where the Part 1 warrant contains the statement referred to in section 2(3) (warrant issued for purposes of prosecution for offence in category 1 territory). (2) Sections 12 to 19F apply for the interpretation of subsection (1). (3) If the judge decides any of the questions in subsection (1) in the affirmative he must order the person’s discharge. (4) If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence, the judge must proceed under section 20. (5) If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is accused of the commission of the extradition offence but is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of it, the judge must proceed under section 21A.
11 Bars to extradition
(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether the person’s extradition to the category 1 territory is barred by reason of— (a) the rule against double jeopardy; (aa) absence of prosecution decision; (b) extraneous considerations; (c) the passage of time; (d) the person’s age; (e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (f) speciality; (g) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from another category 1 territory; (h) the person’s earlier extradition to the United Kingdom from a non-category 1 territory. (i) the person's earlier transfer to the United Kingdom by the International Criminal Court. (j) forum. (1A) But the judge is to decide whether the person's extradition is barredby reason of — (a) absence of prosecution decision, or (b) forum, only in a case where the Part 1 warrant contains the statement referred to in section 2(3) (warrant issued for purposes of prosecution for offence in category 1 territory). (2) Sections 12 to 19F apply for the interpretation of subsection (1). (3) If the judge decides any of the questions in subsection (1) in the affirmative he must order the person’s discharge. (4) If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence, the judge must proceed under section 20. (5) If the judge decides those questions in the negative and the person is accused of the commission of the extradition offence but is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of it, the judge must proceed under section 21A.
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.