The average success rate of animal cruelty cases, from reporting to court ruling, is less than 10%, and nearly one-third of rescued animals die or need to be euthanized within 24 hours—this is the harsh reality facing animal protection enforcement in Hong Kong.

As an international metropolis, Hong Kong’s core animal protection law, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, dates back to 1935. Despite the increasing societal concern for animal welfare, the entire chain of handling animal cruelty cases—ranging from enforcement and investigation to prosecution—faces significant gaps in systematic data and structural inefficiencies. In 2017, the Hong Kong government reaffirmed its commitment to animal welfare and established a cross-departmental task force to handle related cases. However, translating policy commitments into tangible protection for animals requires an evidence-based, deep reform focused on enhancing enforcement efficiency.

• The Hidden Landscape: Fragmented Enforcement Data and Case Black Numbers
  
  To effectively combat crime, it is essential to have a clear understanding of the entire scope of the issue. Currently, data recording for animal cruelty cases in Hong Kong is highly fragmented. The public, animal welfare organizations, and even government departments struggle to grasp overarching trends and patterns.
  
  Key data gaps exist on multiple levels: How do the reporting figures from different departments (police, AFCD, animal welfare organizations) cross over and overlap? What is the duration and attrition rate from receiving reports to deciding whether to prosecute? What are the occurrence rates and regional distributions of different types of cruelty (active abuse, neglect, commercial exploitation, animal hoarding)? At present, there is no unified, publicly accessible data platform that systematically integrates this information.
  
  This data black hole directly leads to policy-making resembling “crossing a river by feeling the stones.” Without accurate baseline data, it is impossible to scientifically assess the effectiveness of current measures or allocate enforcement resources targeting high-incidence areas or types of cases. A review study of 254 prosecuted cases from 2013 to 2019 found that nearly 30% of active abuse cases and 27% of neglect cases ultimately resulted in animal death or euthanasia within 24 hours post-rescue. Behind these alarming numbers lies an unknown extent of tragedies resulting from systematic delays in response.
  
• The Dilemma of Enforcement Chains: The Layers of Barriers from Reporting to Court
  
  Even if a case successfully comes to the attention of law enforcement, the process from investigation and evidence gathering to prosecution remains fraught with obstacles. The current system has clear shortcomings at several critical junctures.
  
  Firstly, there are professional thresholds and legal challenges regarding evidence. According to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, prosecution must prove that the perpetrator “intentionally” caused unnecessary suffering to the animal. In many cases of neglect or psychological abuse, proving this subjective intent is extremely difficult. Additionally, the law sets a six-month prosecution limit, which poses immense pressure for complex cases requiring lengthy observations and evidence collection (such as ongoing neglect or animal hoarding).
  
  Secondly, the professional knowledge of frontline personnel and department collaboration needs enhancement. Although the government has set up a cross-departmental task force, do frontline police or AFCD staff have the knowledge to initially assess animal injuries and stabilize scene evidence when a report comes in? Are the referral processes between the police, AFCD, and animal welfare organizations smooth, and are the standards unified? The efficiency of collaboration at this operational level directly affects the critical timing for investigations.
  
  Lastly, there are issues concerning prosecution resources and strategies. How does the Department of Justice assess the societal severity of animal cruelty cases when deciding whether to prosecute? Faced with time constraints, is there a tendency to handle the most straightforward and direct evidence cases while neglecting more complex but potentially severe ones? These decision-making processes lack transparency, and no public prosecution guidelines are available for public scrutiny.
  
• The Silence of Victims: High-Risk Species and Patterns of Repeated Victimization
  
  Data analysis can not only reveal systemic issues but also illuminate which subjects require the most protection. Existing research indicates that dogs are the species most subjected to abuse and neglect. This may be linked to their status as the most common companion animals, but it also highlights that outreach, monitoring, and enforcement resource allocation for dog welfare may not align with their faced risks.
  
  Even more concerning are cases of animal hoarding, a particular type of case. Studies show the median number of animals involved in such cases can be as high as 47, and the largest-scale hoarding cases often operate under the guise of “animal rescue organizations.” Those engaged in this behavior might consider themselves rescuers, yet their actions lead to animals living in extremely overcrowded and poor conditions, resulting in widespread hidden abuse. The existing laws and enforcement measures clearly lack effective identification and intervention tools for such psychologically complex cases involving many victims.
  
• Path to Reform: Building a Data-Driven, Efficient Collaborative Law Enforcement Ecosystem
  
  To break the current deadlock, a holistic reform strategy that addresses both symptoms and root causes must be adopted. We propose the following four core recommendations:
  
  First, the primary task is to establish a “Central Database for Animal Cruelty Cases.” The government should designate a principal department (such as the Security Bureau or the Environment and Ecology Bureau) to integrate case data from the police, AFCD, animal welfare organizations, and major animal welfare groups. This database should anonymously publish key statistical data, including types of cases, regional distribution, species involved, investigation durations, prosecution results, and sentencing outcomes. Data transparency is fundamental for public oversight and policy optimization.
  
  Second, it is essential to strengthen the professionalism and collaboration in the investigation phase. It is recommended that all frontline personnel in police stations receive mandatory basic training to identify signs of animal abuse. Additionally, optimizing and publicly releasing a flowchart of the cross-departmental case referral process and time standards will ensure that every report can be promptly followed up by the most suitable unit. The establishment of a dedicated “Animal Crime Investigation Officer” position could be explored to coordinate investigations of complex cases.
  
  Third, overcoming bottlenecks in legal and prosecution procedures is crucial. The government should speedily fulfill its commitment to study amending the law by introducing the principle of “due diligence” (i.e., the owners have a proactive responsibility to safeguard animal welfare), which would cover a broad range of negligent care behaviors. Furthermore, extending the prosecution period for serious cruelty offenses or even making certain offenses indictable would provide law enforcement with enough time to manage complex cases.
  
  Finally, implementing sentencing guidelines and enhancing judicial training are important. It is necessary to encourage judicial institutions to formulate sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offenses that clearly include factors such as the level of suffering inflicted on animals, the number of victims, the duration of abuse, and the motivations of the perpetrator as aggravating factors. Regular professional lectures on animal welfare law and animal behavior for magistrates and prosecutors should be provided to increase the judiciary’s awareness of the severity of these crimes.

Protecting animals goes far beyond goodwill; it relies on precise and effective system operations. In 2017, Hong Kong is at a critical juncture to review and upgrade this protective system. Fragmented data, sluggish processes, and outdated laws have woven a security net full of holes, resulting in countless silent lives enduring ongoing suffering.

We call on the Hong Kong SAR government to base its actions on empirical evidence, with the aim of protecting lives and to immediately start constructing a transparent, efficient, and professional enforcement system for animal cruelty cases. Starting from the establishment of a unified database to strengthening frontline enforcement and addressing legal loopholes, every step is crucial.

This is not only to respond to society’s growing demands for animal welfare but also to uphold the fundamental spirit of justice and the rule of law — ensuring every crime is properly investigated, every harm is measured by law, and every life is granted protection as promised by society. Only in this way can Hong Kong truly become a civilized city that treats all lives with kindness.

When the last report is filed and the last case is adjudicated, we hope to see those cold numbers of death in the data decrease year by year until they reach zero.