Can you define without prejudice (or lack of)?

Hobbes

In relation to the Irish Copyright bill amendment. I am not asking about the bill (I am sure we have a whole forum for that). It is more a question about the wording.

(apologies if I am not making sense)

Subsection (3) + (4) defines what a person must have done before proceeding to subsection (5) (as I read it, I may be wrong).

Subsection 4 says without prejudice to subsection (3),
Subsection 5 says without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4),

The amendment 5A used to say:

(5A)(a) without prejudice to subsections (3) and (4),

But that is removed. So does that mean the rest of the subsections prior to that can be ignored, and you jump right to there, or that 5A would become part of 5 (looks like separate subsection to me?)

Tom Young

In the context of that amendment, signed yesterday, it means that the later section does not prejudice the former. It stands alone.

Edit: I didn't see any removals, other than ss.5.