Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ19: Prevention of cruelty to animals
Following is a question by the Hon Claudia Mo and a written reply by the
Secretary for Food and Health, Dr Ko Wing-man, in the Legislative Council
today (January 23):
Question:
The Legislative Council passed amendments to the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) in 2006 to raise the penalties for offences
relating to cruelty to animals, with a view to curbing animal cruelty acts
by enhancing the deterrent effect. However, some members of the public
have relayed to me that the recent case of cat abuse which occurred at
Shun Tin Estate and a number of other animal cruelty cases show that the
situation has not improved so far, and this may be related to the fact
that the sentencing for convicted cases of cruelty to animals in the past
was too lenient. It has been learnt that the Agriculture, Fisheries and
Conservation Department, the Hong Kong Police Force, the Food and
Environmental Hygiene Department and the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) set up an inter-departmental special
working group (working group) in 2011 to analyse the penalties imposed on
the convicted persons by the court. If the penalty imposed by the court is
considered to be too lenient, it will make recommendation to the
Department of Justice (DoJ) as necessary. In this connection, will the
Government inform this Council of:
(a) the numbers of reports involving cruelty to animals, the numbers of
prosecutions instituted and the penalties imposed on the convicted persons
in each of the years from 2006 to 2012 (as set out in Annex);
(b) concrete results of the work of the working group (including such
aspects as facilitating the co-operation among departments, the number of
court cases reviewed and detailed analysis conducted on the relevant
cases); and
(c) the criteria based on which DoJ determines the appropriateness of the
penalties imposed by the court upon receipt of the recommendations made by
the working group on the cases in which the penalties were considered by
the group as too lenient?
Reply:
President,
Over the years, the Government has been seeking to promote, through
multi-pronged measures, a caring culture in the community towards the
protection of animal rights. These measures include education, publicity
and law enforcement. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap.
169) (the Ordinance) underlines our commitment to combat cruelty to
animals. Under the Ordinance, cruelty to animals that may constitute an
offence includes the act of cruelly beating, kicking, ill-treating,
torturing, infuriating or terrifying animals, or causing unnecessary
suffering to them. Other forms of cruelty to animals include carrying
animals or holding them in captivity in an improper way. Officers from
various government departments, (including senior veterinary officers,
health officers, health inspectors, police officers and authorised
officers from the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD),
may take enforcement actions under the Ordinance depending on the
circumstances.
In 2006, with the support of the Legislative Council, the Administration
raised the maximum penalty under the Ordinance by a significant margin.
From a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for six months, the maximum penalty
has been brought up to a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three
years, offering a good measure of deterrence.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) Since 2006, the Administration has received the following number of
reports on suspected cruelty to animals: 101 cases in 2006; 190 in 2007;
187 in 2008; 157 in 2009; 153 in 2010; 129 in 2011; and 77 in 2012 (up to
September).
The distinctive nature of animal cruelty cases is such that most of the
animals involved are stray cats and dogs found in secluded locations (such
as rear lanes). That being the case, law enforcement officers invariably
encounter greater difficulties in collecting and adducing evidence. That,
however, does not deter them from making their best endeavours to bring to
justice those who committed cruelty to animals. As a matter of fact, the
investigations done by the departments concerned turned out to show that
most of the reported cases did not involve cruelty to animals. From 2006
to September 2012, there were 100 cases involving cruelty to animals in
which there was sufficient evidence for instituting prosecutions. The vast
majority of the prosecutions were successful. There were only nine cases
in which the persons involved had not been convicted. Details are shown in
the Annex.
(b) For the purpose of enhancing co-operation in handling animal cruelty
cases among the departments and organisations concerned, AFCD, in
conjunction with the Hong Kong Police Force (the Police), the Food and
Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (HKSPCA), set up an inter-departmental
special working group (working group) in 2011 to review our work on this
front.
In handling animal cruelty cases, members of the working group render
mutual support to each other. The Police and AFCD carry out detection of
animal cruelty cases and, in the process, would exchange information with
HKSPCA from time to time. AFCD provides the expert veterinary advice
necessary for taking forward the investigation and judicial proceedings.
More specifically, AFCD carries out post-mortem investigation where
necessary to find out the cause of death and whether the animals have been
cruelly treated by humans. FEHD assists in handling environmental hygiene
issues and animal carcasses. As for HKSPCA, it provides medical services
to the animals involved. In addition, HKSPCA runs a 24-hour hotline for
public enquiries about animal cruelty cases. It also assists law
enforcement agents as necessary. In discharging its duties on animal
management and welfare, AFCD is responsible for publicity, education,
intelligence gathering, as well as the inspection of the sale outlets for
pets.
The efforts made by the working group have brought concrete results, as
borne out by cases of successful prosecution including the following. In
April 2011, AFCD cracked down a case of internet-based illegal animal
trading activities in Kwun Tong. It rescued 43 puppies at the scene. They
were in poor health and had to be sent to HKSPCA for treatment. The
defendant was eventually fined and sentenced to 160 hours of community
service. In March 2012, the Police and HKSPCA uncovered an animal cruelty
case in Kowloon City. The defendant was sentenced to four months'
imprisonment. In July 2012, they uncovered another case in Hung Hom and
the defendant was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. The successful
prosecution of these cases is due largely to the close communication,
collaboration and joint action of all members of the working group.
The working group attaches great importance to adherence with proper
procedures on the part of frontline officers when collecting evidence and
taking enforcement action. It studies past cases as reference for
improving the procedural guidelines. Since its establishment, the working
group has also kept in view the level of penalty handed down by the court
in convicted cases. The working group noted that the level of penalty
imposed by the court is generally higher than what used to be the case
before we amended the penalty provisions in the Ordinance in 2006. A
sentence of up to imprisonment for six months has been awarded in
convicted cases. If and when a penalty imposed by the court is considered
to be too lenient, the working group will make recommendations to the
Department of Justice (DoJ). No such recommendation has been made so far.
(c) The Prosecutions Division of DoJ has all along followed the policy
laid down in paragraph 28 of "the Statement of Prosecution Policy and
Practice - Code for Prosecutors" when reviewing the sentence of criminal
cases (including cases of animal cruelty). Where the sentence imposed by
the original magistrate is found wrong in principle or manifestly
inadequate, DoJ will submit an application to the original magistrate or
the Court of Appeal for review of sentence.
Ends/Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Issued at HKT 12:32
NNNN
Annex to LCQ19 (Question)
Annex to LCQ19 (Reply)