The British Horse Society Welcomes Parliamentary Bill
The British Horse Society Welcomes Parliamentary Bill to
Amend the Animals Act 1971 to protect blameless horse owners
The British Horse Society today (Tuesday, 11 July) welcomed
the introduction by Laurence Robertson MP of a Bill to amend
the Animals Act 1971. Mr Robertson's Bill aims to remove the
injustice highlighted in the celebrated case of Mirvahedy
v. Henley.
The British Horse Society, which has long been campaigning
for Government to amend the Animals Act, assisted Mr Robertson
in the preparation of his Bill. BHS Chief Executive Graham
Cory said: "We currently have the Kafkaesque situation
in which a blameless person can be made subject to substantial
financial penalties. Mr Robertson's Bill gets to the heart
of the matter by proposing that there should be no penalties
without blame."
In the Mirvahedy v. Henley case, three horses broke out of
a properly fenced field, having probably been startled. The
horses were still behaving in a terrified way some time later
and a mile further up the road. There they strayed onto the
highway and collided with a car, resulting in serious injuries
to the driver, Mr Mirvahedy. In this instance, neither Dr
and Mrs Henley, the owners of the horses, nor Mr Mirvahedy,
the driver, did anything blameworthy. Yet the Henleys were
judged to be strictly liable under the Animals Act 1971 and
were required to pay substantial damages to Mr Mirvahedy.
Mr Robertson, Conservative MP for Tewksbury and Chairman
of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Horse, said:
"It is essential that Parliament removes the inequity
of punishment without blame. My Bill proposes an amendment
of the 1971 Act by providing for a defence of "reasonable
care". Under my proposals, if the owner or keeper of
the animal had exercised the same level of care which any
other reasonable person would have exercised, they would not
be liable for damage caused."
In his judgement in the Mirvahedy case, Lord Nicholls of
Birkenhead acknowledged the argument that "negligence
apart, everyone must take the risks associated with the ordinary
characteristics of animals commonly kept in this country.
These risks are part of the normal give and take of life in
this country." However, he pointed out that it was for
Parliament, not the Courts, to determine what was a matter
of social policy.
Mr Robertson's Bill was introduced under the Ten Minute Rule.
Such Bills are rarely given Parliamentary time to progress
to the Statute Book but Mr Robertson said: "It was very
important that the current inequitable situation, under which
a blameless person can be subjected to severe financial penalties,
should be debated in Parliament. I hope the Government will
now take up this very important issue and amend the 1971 Act."
|
