Proceeding contribution from Andrew Dismore (Labour) 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
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and my hon. Friend the Minister said that the object was to clarify the law. I have read the Mirvahedy judgment and I do not find it particularly difficult to follow the principles behind it. The courts have applied Mirvahedy in a series of cases since, and generally speaking they found in favour of the defendant in most of the cases that I have read, one or two of which we may discuss later. I would simply say that if the law does need clarification, the hon. Gentleman is clarifying it in the wrong direction.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 473 c551
- 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 00:58:42 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455423
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455423
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455423