Propose a change

Criminal Procedure (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

What to do with it
As published

286 Previous convictions: proof in support of substantive charge.

(1) Without prejudice to section 285(6) to (9) or, as the case may be, section 166 of this Act, where proof of a previous conviction including a conviction by a court in a member State of the European Union 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 relevant 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. (1A) In subsection (1)(b) above, “the relevant diet” means— (a) in the case of proceedings in the High Court, the preliminary hearing; (b) in any other case, the trial diet. (2) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (1) 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. (3) The reference in subsection (1)(a) above to “the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction” includes, in relation to a previous conviction by a court in a member State of the European Union, a reference to any officer of that court or of that State having such custody.

Your change, as a redline

286 Previous convictions: proof in support of substantive charge.

(1) Without prejudice to section 285(6) to (9) or, as the case may be, section 166 of this Act, where proof of a previous conviction including a conviction by a court in a member State of the European Union 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 relevant 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. (1A) In subsection (1)(b) above, “the relevant diet” means— (a) in the case of proceedings in the High Court, the preliminary hearing; (b) in any other case, the trial diet. (2) A copy of a conviction or extract conviction served under subsection (1) 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. (3) The reference in subsection (1)(a) above to “the clerk of court having custody of the record containing the conviction” includes, in relation to a previous conviction by a court in a member State of the European Union, a reference to any officer of that court or of that State having such custody.

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 it

Think 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.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds