Peter Crosland wrote:
> ">>>>> Aspects of the Highway code may coincide with the law. But it
> is not a
>>>>>> legal document, it is not a source of law, and it might as well
>>>>>> say whatever it wants, as it is no defence.
>>>
>>> I quote verbatim
>>>
>>> "A failure on the part of a person to observe any provision of The
>>> Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to
>>> criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any
>>> proceedings (whether civil or criminal and including proceedings
>>> for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger
>>> Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport
>>> Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending
>>> to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those
>>> proceedings.
>>>
>>> Road Traffic Act 1988."
>>
>> Thank you for proving absolutely that he was indeed 100% correct.
>>
>> Not that it was actually necessary, since the rest of us already knew
>> the essentials of what you quote.
>
> The fact that the Highway Code is laid before Parliament makes it a
> legal document of considerable importance. It is also a souce of
> considerable case law. Thus the statements made by Gaz relating to it
> are quite wrong.
> Peter Crosland
Your reading does seem to be correct, if parliament says a certain document
is a source of law, does it thus become one?
Gaz
|