Food and Environment Protection Act 1985
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
22 General defence of due diligence.
(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it is a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a person is to be taken to have established the defence provided by that subsection if he proves— (a) that he acted under instructions given to him by his employer; or (b) that he acted in reliance on information supplied by another person without any reason to suppose that the information was false or misleading, and in either case that he took all such steps as were reasonably open to him to ensure that no offence would be committed. (3) If in any case the defence provided by subsection (1) above involves an allegation that the commission of the offence was due to an act or omission by another person, other than the giving of instructions to the person charged with the offence by his employer, or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
22 General defence of due diligence.
(1) In any proceedings for an offence under this Act it is a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, a person is to be taken to have established the defence provided by that subsection if he proves— (a) that he acted under instructions given to him by his employer; or (b) that he acted in reliance on information supplied by another person without any reason to suppose that the information was false or misleading, and in either case that he took all such steps as were reasonably open to him to ensure that no offence would be committed. (3) If in any case the defence provided by subsection (1) above involves an allegation that the commission of the offence was due to an act or omission by another person, other than the giving of instructions to the person charged with the offence by his employer, or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
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.