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
As published
63 Appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court
(1) Part 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (appeal from High Court to Supreme Court) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12 (grant of a certificate by the trial judge enabling an appeal to the Supreme Court), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “those proceedings” insert “ or that the conditions in subsection (3A) (“the alternative conditions”) are satisfied in relation to those proceedings ”, and
(b) omit paragraph (c) (requirement that all parties consent to the grant of the certificate) and the “and” before it.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
(3A) The alternative conditions, in relation to a decision of the judge in any proceedings, are that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and that—
(a) the proceedings entail a decision relating to a matter of national importance or consideration of such a matter,
(b) the result of the proceedings is so significant (whether considered on its own or together with other proceedings or likely proceedings) that, in the opinion of the judge, a hearing by the Supreme Court is justified, or
(c) the judge is satisfied that the benefits of earlier consideration by the Supreme Court outweigh the benefits of consideration by the Court of Appeal.
(4) In section 16 (application of Part 2 to Northern Ireland), after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) In the application of this Part of this Act to Northern Ireland, section 12 has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) there were omitted “or that the conditions in subsection (3A) (“the alternative conditions”) are satisfied in relation to those proceedings”;
(b) after subsection (1)(b) there were inserted
, and
(c) that all the parties to the proceedings consent to the grant of a certificate under this section,
;
(c) subsection (3A) were omitted.
Your change, as a redline
63 Appeals from the High Court to the Supreme Court
(1) Part 2 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 (appeal from High Court to Supreme Court) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 12 (grant of a certificate by the trial judge enabling an appeal to the Supreme Court), in subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “those proceedings” insert “ or that the conditions in subsection (3A) (“the alternative conditions”) are satisfied in relation to those proceedings ”, and
(b) omit paragraph (c) (requirement that all parties consent to the grant of the certificate) and the “and” before it.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
(3A) The alternative conditions, in relation to a decision of the judge in any proceedings, are that a point of law of general public importance is involved in the decision and that—
(a) the proceedings entail a decision relating to a matter of national importance or consideration of such a matter,
(b) the result of the proceedings is so significant (whether considered on its own or together with other proceedings or likely proceedings) that, in the opinion of the judge, a hearing by the Supreme Court is justified, or
(c) the judge is satisfied that the benefits of earlier consideration by the Supreme Court outweigh the benefits of consideration by the Court of Appeal.
(4) In section 16 (application of Part 2 to Northern Ireland), after subsection (1) insert—
(1A) In the application of this Part of this Act to Northern Ireland, section 12 has effect as if—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) there were omitted “or that the conditions in subsection (3A) (“the alternative conditions”) are satisfied in relation to those proceedings”;
(b) after subsection (1)(b) there were inserted
, and
(c) that all the parties to the proceedings consent to the grant of a certificate under this section,
;
(c) subsection (3A) were omitted.
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.
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.