Courts-Martial (Appeals) Act 1968
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
16 Substitution of finding of insanity or findings of unfitness to stand trial etc.
(1) This section applies where, on an appeal against conviction, the Appeal Court, on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved, are of the opinion— (a) that the proper finding would have been one of not guilty by reason of insanity; or (b) that the case is not one where there should have been a finding of not guilty, but that there should have been findings that the accused was unfit to stand trial and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him. (1A) The Appeal Court shall, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the finding appealed against— (a) a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity; or (b) findings that the appellant was unfit to stand trial and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him. (2) Sections 169(2) to (5) and 170 of, and Schedule 4 to, the 2006 Act apply (with any necessary modifications) in relation to the Appeal Court as they apply in relation to the Court Martial in a case in which section 169 of that Act applies. (3) Section 172 of that Act (meaning of “duly approved” etc) applies for the purposes of this section (and references there to the defendant are to be read as references to the appellant). (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16 Substitution of finding of insanity or findings of unfitness to stand trial etc.
(1) This section applies where, on an appeal against conviction, the Appeal Court, on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved, are of the opinion— (a) that the proper finding would have been one of not guilty by reason of insanity; or (b) that the case is not one where there should have been a finding of not guilty, but that there should have been findings that the accused was unfit to stand trial and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him. (1A) The Appeal Court shall, instead of allowing or dismissing the appeal, substitute for the finding appealed against— (a) a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity; or (b) findings that the appellant was unfit to stand trial and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him. (2) Sections 169(2) to (5) and 170 of, and Schedule 4 to, the 2006 Act apply (with any necessary modifications) in relation to the Appeal Court as they apply in relation to the Court Martial in a case in which section 169 of that Act applies. (3) Section 172 of that Act (meaning of “duly approved” etc) applies for the purposes of this section (and references there to the defendant are to be read as references to the appellant). (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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.