If it were a wild horse, it would probably come under section 2(1) of the 1971 Act. However, a horse in a hunt is a domestic horse, whose natural characteristic is to gallop. At the risk of being taken down a peculiar byway, I should say that my hon. Friend would find the same outcome; anyone injured in such circumstances would probably be compensated under the law of negligence. Such a case would not be among the small number, referred to earlier, that would come within the criteria of the Mirvahedy decision.
I go back to what would be caught by section 2(1). Applying the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 would be much better; it sets out an interesting schedule of animals considered to be dangerous, ranging from a giant anteater to the aardvark, via elephants, camels and tigers.
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 c573 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:22:34 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455511
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455511
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_455511