***************************************
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
