News stories of animal cruelty have cropped up one after another, and yet little has been done to address the escalating number of reported animal cruelty cases. 

According to a 2021 study by the University of Hong Kong in collaboration with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), there is a major lapse between the number of reported cases of animal abuse and the number of cases actually reaching the courts. A critical review of the effectiveness of Hong Kong’s current legislation on animal cruelty is clearly warranted.

Offenses stated in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap.169) are only triable summarily with no prescribed time limit for prosecution in the ordinance itself, leaving the six-month time limit for prosecution in the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap.227) to apply. This contributed to a major enforcement issue in which a significant number of offenders (over 20 percent), as highlighted in a 2021 study, managed to evade prosecution because they were not located within the six-month time limit stipulated by Cap.227. The six-month limit for prosecution is simply insufficient when relating to cases involving animal abuse. For example, in 2021, a dog was trapped in a dirty home with no food or water for three to four months before being eventually rescued. Justice without force is powerless. Considering the significant shortcomings of Cap.169 and the need for effective enforcement, it is high time that the Judiciary takes the initiative to amend Cap.169 so as to ensure that our animal laws are not just empty words.

Strengthen legal framework

According to the 2021 study, 59 suspected animal poisoning cases were recorded, but only two were prosecuted. Cap.169 falls short in addressing animal poisoning cases, as it requires catching a defendant in the act and/or obtaining an admission of guilt in order to be able to proceed with a prosecution. In animal poisoning cases in which the suspect is often not present at the scene, the “caught red-handed” requirement becomes a significant obstacle. Burden is placed on law enforcement to catch the perpetrators in the act and also provide sufficient evidence in order to support a successful prosecution.

Prosecuting animal poisoning cases is made more difficult with Cap.169’s absence of a legal framework for investigating, evidence collection, and suspect identification in animal poisoning cases. Law enforcement agencies are practically acting blindly without any guidance as to the standard of proof for animal poisoning cases; the lack of specific provisions leaves enforcement unclear and undermines efforts to hold abusers accountable for their actions. Therefore, it is necessary for the Legislative Council to develop specific guidelines and protocols for investigating cases of animal cruelty so as to assist law enforcement officers and animal welfare organizations in conducting thorough and consistent investigations. This would include guidance on evidence collection, documentation, and reporting procedures.

Animal welfare a ‘positive duty’

Cap.169 primarily focuses on prosecuting offenders after an act of cruelty has occurred. The legislation lacks emphasis on preventive measures, such as raising awareness, promoting responsible pet ownership, and implementing measures to deter acts of poisoning. This lack of a positive duty hampers efforts to address animal cruelty. Switzerland is known for having the most extensive legislation for the protection of animal welfare. Switzerland’s Tierschutzgesetz (Animal Welfare Act) employs an iron-wrist approach to dealing with animal rights. Switzerland employs what it calls the “Five Freedoms”, which outline the fundamental rights of animals: freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition; freedom from discomfort and inadequate shelter; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress. Switzerland’s law builds around these five fundamental principles in order to enforce a positive duty on animal care.

To take animal neglect as an example: Under the principle of freedom from hunger, thirst, and malnutrition, the Swiss ordinance provides specific requirements for appropriate nutrition and access to clean water for animals. It mandates that animals be provided with a balanced diet that meets their nutritional needs to prevent hunger, thirst, and malnutrition. Under the principle of freedom from discomfort and inadequate shelter, the Swiss ordinance further sets stringent standards for the housing and shelter conditions for different animal species. It addresses factors such as appropriate space, temperature, ventilation, and protection from adverse weather conditions. On the contrary, our Cap.169 s.3 on animal neglect merely provides for the bare minimum. There is a need to develop animal welfare codes and guidelines to not only safeguard an animal’s bare minimums of living but also for their welfare. Provisions should be made to explicitly impose a positive duty on animal care providers, with specific standards of care laid out relating to animal care, housing, nutrition, and veterinary care.

Sentencing

According to the 2021 study, only 50 percent of abusers were jailed, with the majority of sentences being six weeks of imprisonment or less. Abusers are practically getting off with a slap on the wrist, with minimal fines. In May, a blood-chilling display of animal cruelty hit the news, with photos and videos surfacing of a man suspected of intentionally breaking pigeons’ wings in public; the man was eventually sentenced to 10 days’ imprisonment. And what of the victims? A pigeon was found to be suffering from broken, bleeding wings, hair loss, and open fractures because of the severity of its injuries, and it had to be euthanized. The first duty of society is justice, yet justice is clearly not being done here. The lax sentencing structure is not enough to deter offenders; there is a need to enhance penalties so as to provide a stronger deterrence, such as higher fines and lengthier imprisonment terms. 

Conclusion

As properly put by Mahatma Gandhi, “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.” The current state of animal law in Hong Kong is inadequate and requires urgent reform. The existing legislation, such as the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, falls short in several key areas. First, the time bar for prosecution is insufficient, allowing many offenders to evade punishment. Second, the legal framework lacks provisions for investigating and prosecuting animal poisoning cases, making it difficult to hold perpetrators accountable. Additionally, the legislation primarily focuses on punishment after the fact, neglecting preventive measures and the promotion of responsible pet ownership. Finally, the sentencing structure is lenient, failing to provide a strong deterrent for offenders. To address these shortcomings, it is crucial to amend the legislation to include longer time limits for prosecution, develop specific guidelines for investigating animal cruelty cases, establish a positive duty for animal care, and enhance penalties for offenders. By implementing comprehensive reforms, Hong Kong can take significant steps toward protecting animal welfare and ensuring that justice is served for animal cruelty cases.

The author is a member of the Legislative Council, has a Master of Arts in social work, and is a registered social worker.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.