This report aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the serious animal cruelty case that occurred in Hong Kong Garden, Sham Tseng, Hong Kong, in 2020. The case provoked unprecedented public anger and concern in Hong Kong society that year, not only because of the brutal nature of the incident—in which 30 animals were thrown from a height, resulting in 18 deaths and 12 injuries—but also because the subsequent judicial proceedings concluded with a decision not to prosecute. This outcome exposed the most critical enforcement dilemma within Hong Kong’s legal system for animal protection. This report examines how the case, as a ‘hot topic’, catalysed various sectors of society, legislative bodies and animal protection organisations to re‑evaluate the deficiencies of the current Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. It also puts forward urgent recommendations for legal reform. Finally, in light of the worsening problem of animal abandonment during the COVID‑19 pandemic in 2020, this report calls on all parties in society to take more proactive and systematic action to close legal loopholes, increase penalties, and bring Hong Kong’s animal welfare legislation into line with international standards.

Introduction
The year 2020 marked a deeply painful watershed for animal protection in Hong Kong. According to mainstream media statistics, at least 36 suspected cases of animal cruelty were reported during the year, averaging three per month, and the number of cases circulating on social media far exceeded that figure. At the same time, the COVID‑19 pandemic exacerbated the problem of animal abandonment: in the first nine months of 2020, 888 animals were abandoned to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), surpassing the total of 818 for the whole of 2019.

A series of incidents, represented by the Hong Kong Garden case, collectively shaped 2020 as a ‘year of awakening’ for animal rights in Hong Kong. It brought an issue long marginalised by mainstream society onto the front pages of major newspapers and the agenda of the Legislative Council for the first time. Because in this case, what people faced was not merely how the law punishes perpetrators, but also the value judgements underlying the entire judicial system and law enforcement decisions – a society’s most fundamental attitude towards life.

Reconstruction of the Case: The Zenith of Betrayal and Cruelty
On 14 February 2020, Western Valentine’s Day – a day meant to be filled with warmth and love – a horrifying animal massacre took place at Hong Kong Garden in Sham Tseng. As many as 30 animals, including cats, rabbits, chinchillas and parrots, were cruelly thrown from a height, scattering on the slopes and drains outside the estate. The final tally was shocking: 18 animals died at the scene, and 12 suffered serious injuries. The police later identified the flat from which the animals were thrown and arrested two men on suspicion of ‘cruelty to animals’.

Judicial Breakdown: The Department of Justice’s Decision Not to Prosecute
The turning point in the case came six months later. Just as the public eagerly awaited the court to deliver justice for the animals that had died in vain, on 2 September 2020 the Department of Justice formally announced that it would not prosecute the two arrested men, on the grounds that the evidence did not support a ‘reasonable prospect of conviction’.

This decision instantly triggered great anger and disappointment in society. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) issued a statement immediately, expressing ‘extreme anger, regret and disappointment’ at the Department of Justice’s decision, and promptly wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions requesting a meeting. In November, even Legislative Council member Junius Kwong publicly accused the Department of Justice’s decision of worsening the social climate, emboldening abusers, and stated that enacting an Animal Welfare Law was a matter of ‘utmost urgency’.

Public anger also translated into sustained collective action. The ‘1020 Furry Parents’ group, formed spontaneously by 1,020 pet owners, not only held a press conference vehemently criticising the Secretary for Justice, Teresa Cheng, for ‘letting off’ the suspected offenders, but also displayed placards asking: ‘Throwing objects from height is a crime, but throwing animals from height is not a crime?’ They demanded that the authorities reconsider prosecution and enact an Animal Protection Law as soon as possible. The question raised by the local community officer, Tam Pui‑yan – ‘Someone confessed, there is a prima facie case, yet they are let off. Aren’t animals lives?’ – represented the common sentiment of countless animal lovers.

Systemic Failure: Why Can the Law Not Hold Perpetrators to Account?
The tragedy of the Hong Kong Garden case lies not only in the loss of animal lives, but also in the structural defects it revealed in Hong Kong’s legal system for protecting animals. The current law protecting animals is primarily based on Cap. 169, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, which was enacted as early as 1935 and has now fallen nearly a century behind the times. The most critical procedural flaw is that the law sets a limitation period for prosecuting such cases of only six months.

Because animal cruelty cases are often complex and evidence‑gathering difficult, the six‑month period is extremely hard to meet in many instances. Some animal protection organisations have strongly urged the government to extend the limitation period substantially to three years, to allow law enforcement agencies to conduct more detailed investigations.

Furthermore, for many years, several animal rights organisations and Legislative Council members have advocated introducing the concept of a ‘duty of care’ into the law. In legislative documents from early 2020, the government, when exploring directions for legal amendment, explicitly proposed imposing a ‘duty of care’ on persons responsible for animals, including specific requirements to provide suitable food, environment, healthcare and behavioural protection. However, even though the government completed a public consultation in 2019 and put forward various amendment proposals in 2020, the draft bill has still not been submitted to the Legislative Council.

Crisis Within a Crisis: The Wave of Abandonment During the Pandemic
It must be emphasised that the animal welfare crisis of 2020 was by no means limited to this cruelty case. The COVID‑19 pandemic also had a profound and negative impact on the fate of pets in society.

At the beginning of the year, Hong Kong recorded the world’s first case of a pet dog testing weakly positive for the novel coronavirus, followed by other dogs and cats testing positive. This news quickly caused public panic. Although expert bodies such as the World Health Organization and the AFCD repeatedly stressed that ‘there is no evidence that pets can transmit the virus to humans’, and animal protection organisations persistently appealed via social media that ‘pets should not be abandoned under any circumstances’, the initial confusion of information still led some owners to react wrongly.

According to data published by the AFCD, there were 888 government‑received abandonment cases in the first nine months of 2020, a clear increase compared with 818 cases in the whole of the previous year (2019). Of note, this figure does not include the large number of unrecorded private abandonments received by civil organisations such as the Sai Kung Stray Friends Foundation (SAA).

Outlook and Recommendations

The impact of the Hong Kong Garden case extends far beyond the single incident. It has torn open the decaying curtain of Hong Kong’s animal welfare legislation and enforcement, exposing the serious insufficiency of current laws in protecting animals from abuse and safeguarding their dignity and lives. To prevent similar tragedies from recurring in the future, this report puts forward the following three core recommendations for Hong Kong society:

Revise the Law and End the Long‑standing Delay
The government must stop delaying the revision of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance. It should complete the legislative process for the long‑promised concept of ‘duty of care’ as soon as possible, so that the provisions clearly define the minimum legal responsibilities of pet owners.

Extend the Limitation Period for Prosecution to Address a Systemic Blind Spot

In line with the long‑standing calls of animal protection organisations, the limitation period for prosecuting animal cruelty cases should be decisively extended from the current six months to three years, in order to accommodate the objective difficulties of evidence gathering and the investigation cycle inherent in such cases.

Strengthen Penalties and Public Education

The government should review and increase the penalty levels for animal cruelty, ensuring that courts can in future impose sentences with sufficient deterrent effect on perpetrators. At the same time, the government and schools should cooperate to strengthen public education, cultivating from an early age respect for life and a correct attitude towards the legal system.

Conclusion

The Hong Kong Garden animal cruelty case is the most painful turning point in the history of animal protection in Hong Kong. The brutal nature of the case, together with the subsequent decision not to prosecute, not only cost 18 lives in vain, but also deeply shook public confidence in the rule of law’s ability to protect vulnerable groups. Yet, amidst this turmoil, we have also seen positive forces: the spontaneous solidarity of many citizens, the persistent determination of animal protection organisations, and the stern accountability demanded by Legislative Council members in the chamber.

Today, standing on this still‑long road of reform, we must remember that law is not a silent text; it reflects a society’s attitude towards the weak. For an international metropolis that prides itself on the rule of law and civilisation, protecting animals is not merely a moral choice, but also a manifestation of responsibility and commitment. Only through the joint efforts of the law, the public and the government can these tragedies of 2020 eventually become the historical foundation stone for change, rather than just a footnote in the history books.