Proceeding contribution from Stephen Crabb (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
If the hon. Member for Hendon is arguing that my Bill undoes a higher level of protection that Mirvahedy has given to all victims in cases of this kind, he is wrong. The Mirvahedy judgment did not settle the issue, as we saw in the Court of Appeal last week. What that case did, as has been said time and again by numerous parties representing both victims and animal-owning interests, was muddy the waters further. We need to clarify the circumstances in which strict liability applies and those in which it does not, and I think that my Bill helps us to do that.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c543
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Animals Damage Liability Horse riding Insurance Horses Rural areas Urban areas
- Legislation
- Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-16 00:57:49 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455384
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455384
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455384