"Gaz" wrote in message
news:68qbrmF2v1djcU1@mid.individual.net...
> 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
Yes it does but only where this is specifically provided for in law. In this
instance the RTAs make specific reference to the HC and the laying before
Parliament is nechanism for enabling new versions of the HC without the need
to pass new legislation. It is a procedure is called a Statutory Instrument
or SI for short.
Peter Crosland
|