A skinny stray mother cat, trembling with her newborn kittens, is found in a cardboard box in a cold alley of an old district in Hong Kong. Their fate may ultimately lead them to the AFCD’s animal management center—where, according to 2019 data, nearly half of the unclaimed cats and dogs are euthanized. This scene is emblematic of the plight of stray animals in Hong Kong. In 2021, although the absolute number of stray cats and dogs decreased from 3,771 in 2015 to 1,269 in 2019, a harsh reality persists: approximately 48% of the cats and dogs received by the AFCD’s animal management center in 2019 were still euthanized. Behind these figures lies the struggle of countless lives and the exposure of a significant gap in our policies, which excessively rely on an “capture-neuter-manage” model while neglecting source governance. The issue of stray animals is not just an animal welfare crisis; it also concerns community health, public safety, and social civility. To address it fundamentally, Hong Kong must decisively shift its policy focus from passive “end-processing” to proactive “source governance.” The scientific practices of “Trap-Neuter-Return” (TNR) and early identification and intervention regarding “animal hoarding” behaviors are two key pillars of this transformation. The presence of stray animals is a reflection of human societal activities, mirroring the consequences of abandonment, neglect, and uncontrolled breeding stemming from a lack of responsibility. Continuing to rely on high rates of humane euthanasia to maintain a superficial sense of “control” contradicts the self-image of a civilized and caring international city. In 2021, we stand at a crossroads for policy transformation. The data has clearly revealed the bottlenecks of existing models. It is time to summon political courage and decisively redirect resources and policy wisdom from costly “end-processing” towards more fundamentally significant “source governance.” By embracing scientific TNR and confronting the complex issue of animal hoarding, we can not only manage stray animal populations more humanely and effectively but also build a Hong Kong society that bears greater responsibility and kindness towards all lives. This pathway of transformation is fraught with challenges, but every life saved from tragedy will stand as the most precious testament to this change.

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. IntroductionThe 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 CrueltyOn 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 ProsecuteThe 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 PandemicIt must be emphasised that the animal welfare

An elderly stray dog was found on the terrace of a village house in Sheung Shui, tied with a too-short chain, surrounded by piles of excrement, and its water bowl long dried up. When the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) personnel arrived, they faced a dilemma—under the current Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance, as long as the animal was not in obvious and immediate danger or visibly injured, such long-term neglect and deprivation of welfare often fail to meet the prosecution threshold for “cruelty.” This scenario reveals a fundamental flaw in Hong Kong’s animal protection laws: the law punishes only after harm has occurred and is powerless to prevent it beforehand. In 2019, the Hong Kong government launched a public consultation on the amendment of the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance, with one core proposal being the introduction of an active “Duty of Care.” By 2021, the legislative process regarding this paradigm shift had become a crucial gauge for measuring whether Hong Kong’s animal welfare could modernize. In contrast to the international community, Hong Kong’s animal welfare legal framework remains stuck in the twentieth century. In over 100 countries and regions with established animal welfare laws, requiring owners or caretakers to fulfill an active “Duty of Care” has become the legislative mainstream, marking a leap from “prohibiting cruelty” to “ensuring welfare.” The introduction of “Duty of Care” is not just about adding a few clauses to the law. It represents a profound conceptual revolution—from viewing animals as mere commodities to recognizing them as sentient beings whose welfare needs to be actively ensured. In 2021, Hong Kong stands at a crossroads for upgrading animal welfare policy. The public consultation in 2019 has paved the way for reform, and societal voices have never been clearer. Taking this step will align Hong Kong with the advanced animal welfare legal systems around the world; delaying it will mean that more animals silently endure unnecessary suffering within the gray areas of the law. We call on the legislative body to seize this opportunity and quickly translate this already formed consensus for reform into enforceable legal provisions. Let us work together to transform Hong Kong from a city that merely “prevents cruelty” into a civilized society that actively “ensures welfare” and takes responsibility for all lives.

In 2019, a dog named “Mi Xue” was brutally abused, resulting in multiple fractures— a case that shocked the city. However, the abuser was ultimately sentenced to only community service. This incident became a catalyst for pushing for legislative amendments, yet two years later, the promised new law remains far off. In 2021, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) received 256 reports of animal cruelty, but only 15 successful prosecutions were recorded that year, yielding a prosecution rate of less than 6%. Behind this glaring figure lies a two-year legislative void since the government announced plans to amend the Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 169), along with the harsh reality that countless animals have failed to receive the necessary protection under outdated laws. The government has stated its aim to “complete the legislative work as soon as possible,” but by the end of 2021, the amendment draft had still not been submitted for review by the Legislative Council. This legislative delay is causing more animals to pay the price. The law is a reflection of society’s baseline values. A law formulated decades ago that cannot protect animals from suffering is incompatible with Hong Kong’s self-professed image as a civilized and caring international city. The public consultation in 2019 clearly demonstrated the will of the people, and the statistics of cases in 2021 reveal a harsh reality. Government delays mean that each day, animals suffer the consequences. This is not only a matter of administrative efficiency but also of political will and value choices. We call on the government to take immediate action, providing a clear legislative timetable and making substantial progress within 2021. At the same time, we urge every citizen concerned about animal welfare to no longer remain silent but to make their voices heard through various channels. Only when society forms an undeniable collective force can we break through bureaucratic inertia and bring this long-promised protection law to the animals who have waited too long.