Important provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 come into force on 1 January 1996.

Critical amendments have been made to s 142 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.

This section enables a court to vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender.

The court may now do this if it appears to be in the interests of justice.

The old restrictions requiring the amendment to be made within 28 days by a court constituted of a majority of the same justices have been repealed.

This will have a particular significance for road traffic process proved and sentenced in the absence of a defendant who then protests and is able to prove his innocence.

Whereas an appeal had previously been necessary, the matter can now be re-opened to rescind the sentence under s 142.

The court then has common law powers to allow a change of plea (S (an infant) v Manchester City Recorder 1969 3 All ER 1230).In R v Stratford Youth Court ex p Conde [1996] The Times, 5 April, the court retained its jurisdiction to allow a change of plea, despite the fact that the defendant had pleaded guilty at a different youth court and had been committed to the Stratford Youth Court for sentence.

The receiving court had all the powers it would have had if it had been the initial place of trial.Other provisions of the 1995 Act have made important changes to appea ls.

Leave is now required, either from the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal, to appeal on a point of law as well as on points of fact or mixed fact and law.

Appeals can be allowed on only one ground; the court then quashing the conviction and deciding whether to order a re-trial.

The ground is 'if the court think that the conviction is unsafe'.

The proviso has been repealed.This reform follows recommendations of the Runciman Royal Commission and was intended to make appeals easier to pursue.

However, the word 'unsafe' is not defined and only experience will show how it is interpreted.

S 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, now also amended, provides for the receipt by the Court of Appeal of new evidence.

The test has been lowered.

The section used to require that it was 'likely to be credible'.

The provision now requires only that it is 'capable of belief'.

The statute still requires that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to produce the evidence in the original proceedings.

The importance of this provision was emphasised in R v Lewis (Martin) [1996] Crim LR 260.

A solicitor had been present at the interview and the defendant had been subject, on an earlier occasion, to a probation order with psychiatric treatment directed.

In the absence of evidence to explain why no medical evidence was called at trial the court declined to receive new evidence.