Replies to LegCo questions
LCQ18: Prevention of cruelty to animals
Following is a question by the Dr Hon Helena Wong and a written reply by
the Secretary for Food and Health, Dr Ko Wing-man, in the Legislative
Council today (March 20):
Question:
The Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), in collaboration with the Agriculture,
Fisheries and Conservation Department, the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong), veterinary associations and animal concern
groups, introduced the Animal Watch Scheme in 2011 to fight against
cruelty to animals through a four-pronged approach of education,
publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation, including referring
such cases to the professional crime investigation teams under HKPF for
investigation. Meanwhile, HKPF indicated earlier that it had forwarded the
requests of animal welfare concern groups and individuals for the
establishment of "animal police" to the Food and Health Bureau (FHB),
which is responsible for overall animal welfare matters. In this
connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of reports received by the authorities in each of the
past five years on suspected cases of cruelty to animals; the number of
animals which were injured or killed and abusers in such cases; a
breakdown on the number of reports by the type of harm done to the
animals, the number of abusers and District Council district;
(b) of the detection rates of such cases, the number of persons arrested
as well as the number of persons convicted and the respective maximum and
minimum penalties imposed on them by the court, in each of the past five
years;
(c) of the respective resources deployed by the authorities since 2011
(broken down by month) to fight against cruelty to animals in respect of
education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation;
(d) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the Animal Watch Scheme
on the whole and in respect of the aforesaid four aspects; if it has, of
the assessment criteria, as well as details of publicity and education
activities, the amount of intelligence gathered and the number of cases
investigated since the introduction of the Scheme; if not, the reasons for
that;
(e) of the number of cases of cruelty to animals handled by the crime
investigation teams each month since 2011; whether the team members have
received professional training relevant to animal rights and welfare; if
they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and how it
ensures that the team members have adequate professional knowledge in
handling cases of cruelty to animals; and
(f) whether HKPF, FHB and the Security Bureau had conducted
inter-departmental meetings on the establishment of "animal police" in the
past five years; if they had, of the details (including the dates, time,
venues and conclusions, etc.) of such meetings each year; whether they
have considered providing the crime investigation team members in various
police districts or individual police districts or other members of HKPF
with relevant professional knowledge and training, and designating such
members of HKPF to handle animal-related cases specifically; if they have,
of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
Reply:
President,
Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, cruelty to animals
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, we 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.
For the purpose of enhancing co-operation 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 in 2011 an inter-departmental special working group (working group)
to examine our work on handling animal cruelty cases. The Police
introduced the "Animal Watch Scheme" (the Scheme) in 2011 to step up
co-operation among stakeholders for joint efforts to combat crimes of
cruelty to animals. The Scheme aims to strengthen the Police's efforts in
the investigation of animal cruelty cases. By enhancing
co-operation with different organisations and promoting wider public
involvement, it enables animal cruelty cases to be prevented and detected
more effectively.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) and (b) In the past five years, the Administration has received the
following number of reports on suspected cruelty to animals: 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 it turned out, the
investigations done by the departments concerned showed that most of the
reported cases did not involve cruelty to animals. From 2008 to September
2012, there were 68 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 six cases in which the
persons involved had not been convicted. Details are shown in Annex.
(c) and (d) Further details about the work done by the Administration in
combating animal cruelty cases since 2011, the resources spent on
education, publicity, intelligence gathering and investigation as well as
the overall effectiveness of our efforts are given below.
In pursuing efforts to safeguard and promote animal welfare, we have taken
public education as the most important part of our work. In this regard,
AFCD has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify
public education and publicity programme for promoting care for animals
and pressing home the related messages. Since April 2011, AFCD has
allocated over $18 million to public education and publicity for promoting
animal welfare. The primary tasks include disseminating messages
advocating "responsible pet ownership" and protection of animals. The
relevant activities include producing announcements in the public interest
on TV and radio; placing advertisements on such platforms as cinemas,
public transport, bus stops, magazines and websites; organising
promotional events jointly with different animal welfare organisations in
shopping arcades and outdoor venues; the conduct of village and community
campaigns, as well as holding talks in schools and housing estates.
Breakdown of statistics by month is not available.
The Animal Watch Scheme introduced by the Police is also supported by two
professional veterinary associations (i.e. the Hong Kong Veterinary
Association and China (Hong Kong) Veterinary Association). They help us
disseminate, amongst their members (i.e. practising veterinarians), the
Government's messages on combating cruelty to animals. With a view to
strengthening the intelligence network, they also help encourage their
members to report suspected acts of cruelty to animals or the suspected
culprits. At the same time, the Police and the AFCD welcome wider
participation on the part of the public and animal concern groups in
combating cruelty to animals. Should any member of the public come across
a case of animal cruelty, he/she may call the Police or report to the AFCD
via the 1823 Call Centre. Upon receipt of the report, the relevant
department will take appropriate and prompt action to follow up.
On the investigation front, in order to help front-line officers better
understand the multi-agency approach in handling animal cruelty cases
thereby enhancing their professional standards in on-site investigation
and management, the Police has organised criminal investigation courses
for them and invited AFCD, HKSPCA and officers with relevant expertise to
share their experience. They also conduct seminars to help Police officers
grasp the prevailing trend of animal cruelty cases.
The numbers of stray animals found in response to complaints and animals
delivered to AFCD by the public in the past two years have decreased by
26% and 11% respectively. The number of suspected cases of cruelty to
animals has also been declining. This shows that the Scheme has been
effective. The Scheme has been in place for less than two years. The
Police, AFCD and HKSPCA will maintain close liaison to ensure its
effective operation.
(e) and (f) From 2011 to September 2012, a total of 106 suspected cases of
cruelty to animals were handled by the crime investigation teams of the
Police.
At present, all members of the crime investigation teams have received
professional crime investigation training and are capable of handling
cases of cruelty to animals. In fact, the Police has provided the crime
investigation teams in various police districts with adequate manpower,
exposure and professional investigation skills to follow up such cases.
Depending on the distribution of cases and the prevailing trend, the
Police will consider designating dedicated teams to investigate the cases
so that the detection work can be conducted in a more comprehensive and
targeted manner.
In handling animal cruelty cases, members of the working group referred to
in the preamble of this reply 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. FEHD assists in handling
environmental hygiene issues and animal carcasses. As for HKSPCA, it
provides medical services to the animals involved and 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 successful prosecutions 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 the
defendants in these cases is due largely to the close communication,
collaboration and joint action of all members of the working group.
The Animal Watch Scheme has further strengthened co-operation among
stakeholders, laying the ground for concerted efforts to combat crimes of
cruelty to animals. By allowing flexible deployment of Police resources,
the arrangements are effective in combating animal cruelty cases.
Ends/Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Issued at HKT 15:24
NNNN
LCQ18 Annex