Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997
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
17 Right of appeal.
(1) In section 106 of the 1995 Act (right of appeal in solemn proceedings), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections— (3) By an appeal under subsection (1) above a person may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice, which may include such a miscarriage based on— (a) subject to subsections (3A) to (3D) below, the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings; and (b) the jury’s having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned. (3A) Evidence such as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a) above may found an appeal only where there is a reasonable explanation of why it was not so heard. (3B) Where the explanation referred to in subsection (3A) above or, as the case may be, (3C) below is that the evidence was not admissible at the time of the original proceedings, but is admissible at the time of the appeal, the court may admit that evidence if it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. (3C) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above is evidence— (a) which is— (i) from a person; or (ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person, who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and (b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given, it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence. (3D) For the purposes of subsection (3C) above, “independent evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not heard at the original proceedings; (b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (3C) above; and (c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable. . (2) In section 175 of the 1995 Act (right of appeal in summary proceedings), for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections— (5) By an appeal under subsection (2) above, an appellant may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice which may include such a miscarriage based, subject to subsections (5A) to (5D) below, on the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings. (5A) Evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings may found an appeal only where there is a reasonable explanation of why it was not so heard. (5B) Where the explanation referred to in subsection (5A) above or, as the case may be, (5C) below is that the evidence was not admissible at the time of the original proceedings, but is admissible at the time of the appeal, the court may admit that evidence if it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. (5C) Without prejudice to subsection (5A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above is evidence— (a) which is— (i) from a person; or (ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person, who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and (b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given, it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence. (5D) For the purposes of subsection (5C) above, “independent evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not heard at the original proceedings; (b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (5C) above; and (c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable. (5E) By an appeal against acquittal under subsection (3) above a prosecutor may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice. .
17 Right of appeal.
(1) In section 106 of the 1995 Act (right of appeal in solemn proceedings), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsections— (3) By an appeal under subsection (1) above a person may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice, which may include such a miscarriage based on— (a) subject to subsections (3A) to (3D) below, the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings; and (b) the jury’s having returned a verdict which no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have returned. (3A) Evidence such as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a) above may found an appeal only where there is a reasonable explanation of why it was not so heard. (3B) Where the explanation referred to in subsection (3A) above or, as the case may be, (3C) below is that the evidence was not admissible at the time of the original proceedings, but is admissible at the time of the appeal, the court may admit that evidence if it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. (3C) Without prejudice to subsection (3A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) above is evidence— (a) which is— (i) from a person; or (ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person, who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and (b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given, it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence. (3D) For the purposes of subsection (3C) above, “independent evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not heard at the original proceedings; (b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (3C) above; and (c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable. . (2) In section 175 of the 1995 Act (right of appeal in summary proceedings), for subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections— (5) By an appeal under subsection (2) above, an appellant may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice which may include such a miscarriage based, subject to subsections (5A) to (5D) below, on the existence and significance of evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings. (5A) Evidence which was not heard at the original proceedings may found an appeal only where there is a reasonable explanation of why it was not so heard. (5B) Where the explanation referred to in subsection (5A) above or, as the case may be, (5C) below is that the evidence was not admissible at the time of the original proceedings, but is admissible at the time of the appeal, the court may admit that evidence if it appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice to do so. (5C) Without prejudice to subsection (5A) above, where evidence such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above is evidence— (a) which is— (i) from a person; or (ii) of a statement (within the meaning of section 259(1) of this Act) by a person, who gave evidence at the original proceedings; and (b) which is different from, or additional to, the evidence so given, it may not found an appeal unless there is a reasonable explanation as to why the evidence now sought to be adduced was not given by that person at those proceedings, which explanation is itself supported by independent evidence. (5D) For the purposes of subsection (5C) above, “independent evidence” means evidence which— (a) was not heard at the original proceedings; (b) is from a source independent of the person referred to in subsection (5C) above; and (c) is accepted by the court as being credible and reliable. (5E) By an appeal against acquittal under subsection (3) above a prosecutor may bring under review of the High Court any alleged miscarriage of justice. .
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.