In 2019, an “animal shelter” in a village house in Hong Kong was exposed, where nearly a hundred dogs were kept, with 20 having already died, and the survivors forced to resort to cannibalism for survival. Despite such a horrifying scene, the person responsible only received a sentence of 160 hours of community service.

This case is not an isolated incident; it is a microcosm of the difficulties faced by animal abuse cases at both enforcement and judicial levels in Hong Kong. Research conducted by the Law Faculty of the University of Hong Kong in collaboration with the Hong Kong Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals revealed that among 335 suspected animal abuse cases examined from 2013 to 2019, over 170 cases (more than 50%) ultimately did not proceed to prosecution. The research further indicated that in severe animal abuse cases, less than half of the defendants were imprisoned, with an average sentence of only 2.4 months.

Behind these numbers lies a systematic failure. The handling of reported cases resembles a sieve full of holes: high evidentiary thresholds, short prosecution timelines, fragmented enforcement authority, and penalties lacking deterrent effects create numerous barriers, resulting in many cases failing to enter the judicial process or receiving overly lenient punishments upon conviction. This is not only a crisis for animal welfare but also a challenge to the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

• Outdated Laws: Obsolete Ordinances and High Hurdles for Prosecution
  
  The current Animal Cruelty Prevention Ordinance (Chapter 169) was primarily established in 1935, with key flaws being its “passivity” and “lag.” The ordinance mainly punishes extreme acts of “cruelty” that have already occurred, while for more common and insidious issues like neglect, psychological abuse, or long-term deprivation of welfare, legal definitions are vague, making prosecution difficult.
  
  The most critical obstacle is the extremely high burden of proof. According to the ordinance, the prosecution must prove that the perpetrator “intentionally” inflicted unnecessary suffering. In many cases, particularly those involving abandonment or neglect, proving such subjective intent is exceedingly challenging. The research from HKU and the SPCA found that many unprosecuted cases were due to “the police being unable to find the perpetrator, or failing to uncover physical evidence of injury during inspections.”
  
  This leads to an absurd phenomenon: a pet owner who allows an animal to slowly die in horrid conditions out of ignorance or indifference might find it harder to be convicted than someone who physically assaults an animal in a fit of rage. Legal blind spots inadvertently condone long-term, chronic animal suffering.
  
• Enforcement Dilemmas: Fragmented Powers and Time Constraints
  
  The issues on the enforcement level are equally severe. First, enforcement powers and resources are fragmented and insufficient. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) is the primary enforcement agency but lacks comprehensive investigative powers like the police (e.g., search and arrest). Moreover, until 2020, the police had not established dedicated teams to handle animal crime across the various police districts. This division of labor can lead to poor case referrals and delays in initial investigations, missing crucial evidence.
  
  Second, short prosecution deadlines present a significant barrier. According to the ordinance, the prosecution timeline for minor offenses is only six months. The research from HKU and the SPCA indicated that about 20% of abandonment cases failed to proceed because the police were unable to timely locate and prosecute offenders within that six-month period, allowing them to evade legal sanctions. For complex cases that require time to investigate (such as cross-border smuggling or organized illegal breeding), this timeline severely constrains enforcement actions.
  
• Judicial Challenges: Lenient Penalties and Lack of Sentencing Guidelines Even if cases successfully enter the judicial process and result in convictions, the final penalties are often criticized for lacking deterrent effects. Currently, the maximum penalty under the ordinance is a fine of HKD 200,000 and imprisonment for three years; however, in practice, very few cases reach these upper limits.
  
  For instance, in the previously mentioned severe hoarding case that led to cannibalism among animals, the defendant was only sentenced to community service. Studies show that in serious abuse cases, the average period of incarceration is only 2.4 months, far below similar penalties in other common law jurisdictions. Additionally, fines are generally low, failing to reflect the seriousness of the offenses.
  
  One reason for this situation is the lack of statutory sentencing guidelines. Judges, when sentencing, do not have a clear framework to assess the severity of the abusive behavior, the duration of the animal’s suffering, or the motivations of the perpetrator, leading to significant disparities and an overall trend towards lighter sentences. Lenient judgments send a misleading message to society, reducing the psychological costs for potential offenders.
  
• Reform Pathways: Constructing a Complete Chain of “Investigation-Prosecution-Sentencing”
  
  To break the prosecution deadlock, systematic reforms must be implemented, proposing specific solutions addressing the legislative, enforcement, and judicial aspects.
  
  • Enhancing Enforcement Power and Efficiency
    
    • Establish dedicated animal crime investigation teams: Advocate for the police to form a specialized “Animal Crime Investigation Division” under the criminal investigation framework or to reinforce teams in various districts, staffed with specially trained personnel responsible for coordinating investigations, gathering evidence, and collaborating with the AFCD.
    • Expand and clarify enforcement powers: Amend legislation to grant authorized enforcement personnel (including SPCA inspectors, for example) the authority to enter premises to investigate and rescue animals under reasonable suspicion, addressing the current inability to obtain evidence due to restricted access.
    • Extend prosecution timelines: Significantly prolong the six-month prosecution timeline for minor offenses, or classify some severe offenses as “prosecutable offenses” not subject to prosecution timelines, ensuring complex cases have sufficient time for investigation.
      
  • Addressing Legal Gaps and Strengthening Prosecutions
    
    • Introduce “reasonable duty”: This is the core of the reform. The law should explicitly state that animal caretakers (owners, breeders, sellers, etc.) have a proactive duty to provide suitable food, environment, medical care, and opportunities for behavioral expression for animals. Failing to fulfill this duty would be illegal, allowing for the issuance of “improvement notices” to prevent many neglect cases from escalating into severe abuse.
    • Broaden definitions of abuse: Clearly include “abandonment of animals” within the violations of “reasonable duty.” Additionally, explicitly define harmful behaviors such as poisoning animals, performing non-therapeutic mutilations (e.g., tail docking, claw removal), and improper “release” practices as forms of abuse, thereby reducing the evidentiary burden during prosecutions.
      
  • Establishing Deterrent Sentencing Standards
    
    • Significantly increase maximum penalties: Following international standards and social expectations, raise the maximum penalties to ten years of imprisonment and fines of HKD 2 million to provide a legal framework for severely punishing extreme cases.
    • Develop sentencing guidelines: Encourage judicial bodies to create sentencing guidelines for animal abuse offenses that require judges to consider factors such as the level of animal suffering, the number of victims, the duration of abuse, and any premeditation when determining sentences, ensuring penalties are commensurate with the crimes.
    • Introduce bans on offenders owning animals and restitution mechanisms: Courts should have the authority to impose bans on convicted offenders from owning animals for a specified period or for life. Additionally, introduce mechanisms to require convicted offenders to compensate for medical and care expenses incurred for the animals.

The life of a law lies in its enforcement. A law that cannot bring criminals to justice or compel them to pay the corresponding costs is essentially meaningless. In 2020, Hong Kong faces a systemic failure in prosecuting animal abuse cases. What is needed is not piecemeal fixes but a profound reform that traverses the entire “investigation-prosecution-sentencing” chain.

From empowering law enforcement with sufficient authority and time to investigate, to closing legal loopholes that give a basis for prosecution, and establishing clear and severe sentencing standards to uphold justice, each step is crucial. This effort is not only to protect voiceless animals but also to defend our society’s inherent respect for life and its bottom line.

We call on the government, the Legislative Council, and the judiciary to confront these issues head-on and adopt the aforementioned practical and urgent reform proposals. Only by establishing an efficient, equitable, and deterrent judicial system can we break the cycle of abuse and truly make Hong Kong a city that is friendly to all life.