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.
Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Dismore
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 14 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animals Act 1971 (Amendment) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
473 c551 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
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