With the departure of Super Typhoon Ragasa, the inquest has begun. However, it need not be too extensive. The Hong Kong Observatory more than rose to the occasion, and the authorities were fully prepared for all contingencies.

Everything possible was done to prepare the city for the “king of storms”, and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government’s comprehensive precautions worked well. For the most part, people behaved responsibly, and the consequences were nowhere near as dire as some had predicted. There was, however, some irresponsible behavior, including “storm chasing”, which could have had grave consequences.

In one shocking episode, a family of four (two adults and their two children) was struck by a powerful wave while watching the storm on a Chai Wan breakwater. The mother and her 5-year-old son were swept into the sea, and the father risked his life to save them (their traumatized 9-year-old daughter was left sobbing on the shore). They were eventually pulled from the water by seamen and firefighters, and hospitalized.

Thereafter, two women were arrested for allegedly endangering a child (by neglect or ill-treatment) after a video was circulated on social media showing them and an 8-year-old boy being swept off their feet at the South Horizons waterfront last Wednesday as they took selfies, engulfing them in water. Although there were reportedly no serious injuries, the boy (the son of one of the women) was hospitalized, and treated for abrasions to his hands and feet.

On Friday, moreover, the police arrested a man and a woman (reportedly for child neglect) for taking two boys, aged 4 and 6, to watch the waves as the sea surged at a waterfront in Kennedy Town, thereby placing them at risk.

Amid public concerns over risk-taking in general and child safety in particular, the secretary for security, Chris Tang Ping-Keung, said he would consider new legislation to criminalize “storm chasing”. However, even though there was currently no dedicated law, he considered that the irresponsible conduct in question was not beyond the law, and he was correct.

Tang said that if individuals forcibly entered closed areas or refused to follow police instructions to leave, they would be liable to prosecution. He was referring to the Bathing Beaches Regulation (Cap.132), under which anyone who fails to comply with temporary closure arrangements (including beaches shut because of inclement conditions) faces a fine of HK$2,000 ($257) and a maximum of 14 days’ imprisonment.

This regulation can be invoked, for example, against swimmers, surfers and “storm chasers”, and a 54-year-old man is being summoned for allegedly swimming at a closed public beach in Tuen Mun while the T10 signal was hoisted.

One lawmaker, Doreen Kong Yuk-foon, has called for the penalties for entering closed beaches during storms to be increased, and opined that a “storm chasing” law would be a deterrent — undoubtedly correct.

If, moreover, said Tang, adults irresponsibly took children to hazardous locations during severe weather they might be guilty of neglect (one of the elements of the child cruelty law). This, however, is not clear-cut.

The child cruelty offense is housed in the Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212), and is punishable with up to 10 years’ imprisonment (s.27). It is directed at somebody who, having the care of a child or young person, “willfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes such child or young person or causes or procures such a child or young person to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause such child or young person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health” (s.27).

Although foolish, adults who take children out for “storm chasing” invariably want to give them a thrill and/or let them experience a fascinating natural phenomenon, but are not malign or otherwise ill-intentioned toward them. They certainly do not want to harm the child, let alone cause it “unnecessary suffering”. This creates a dilemma for a prosecutor thinking of invoking the child cruelty law

Although a bold prosecutor might contend that somebody who takes a child “storm chasing” is neglecting or ill-treating it, a court would not be easily convinced.

Although foolish, adults who take children out for “storm chasing” invariably want to give them a thrill and/or let them experience a fascinating natural phenomenon, but are not malign or otherwise ill-intentioned toward them. They certainly do not want to harm the child, let alone cause it “unnecessary suffering”. This creates a dilemma for a prosecutor thinking of invoking the child cruelty law.

Indeed, the offense provision could hardly be clearer — the neglect or ill-treatment in question must be “willful”. What this means, therefore, is that a suspect should have a guilty mind (mens rea), involving an intention to act against the child’s best interests in some way. This, however, will invariably be the last thing on the mind of somebody who takes a child “storm chasing”.

But this is not the only hurdle a prosecutor would face. The child cruelty offense specifically identifies the behavior capable of amounting to “neglect”. It must be conduct likely to cause injury to the child or young person’s health by virtue of failing “to provide adequate food, clothing or lodging for the child”. In other words, it is conduct associated with a failure to satisfy the child’s basic needs, invariably in a domestic context — and does not extend to somebody who only wants to give a child a thrill.

Although, moreover, “ill-treatment” is not legally defined, it is intended to cover a course of willful ill-treatment. Bullying or intimidation would suffice, as would any course of conduct calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health. But one-off events, such as isolated incidents of “storm chasing”, likely fall outside its ambit.

Given these obstacles, Tang’s initial instincts were obviously correct. If his concern is to ensure that children and young people are fully protected during storms, the law can be strengthened by a short amendment to the child cruelty offense. It could, for example, be changed to make clear that recklessly exposing a child or young person to a hazardous situation that is likely to endanger his health or safety constitutes ill-treatment.

If, moreover, Tang goes down this path, he should kill two birds with one stone. The opportunity should be taken to update the child cruelty law by clarifying that emotional abuse is as much of a crime as physical abuse (as happened in the United Kingdom in 2015, by means of its “Cinderella Law”). The amendment would follow the British model by stating simply that the offense of child cruelty includes nonphysical, as well as physical, ill-treatment. This would help to close down a serious loophole of which many abusers who emotionally harm minors have been able to take advantage (as things stand, prosecutions invariably proceed on the basis of tangible evidence, such as a medical report showing bruising, with mental suffering falling by the wayside).

Although psychological harm is prevalent and “storm chasing” less so, both situations now require Tang’s urgent attention.

Whereas the two suggested amendments would enhance the efficacy of the child cruelty offense, the maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment should, as the Court of Appeal proposed in 2023, be increased. They are not controversial, and there is every reason to suppose that lawmakers would give them a fair wind. If Tang can expedite these much-needed changes, children will be safer, and everybody concerned about child welfare will breathe a sigh of relief.

The author is a senior counsel and honorary consultant to the Child Protection Institute of Against Child Abuse, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.