***************************************
Following is a question by the Hon Chan Hak-kan and a written reply by the Acting Secretary for Food and Health, Professor Sophia Chan, in the Legislative Council today (February 19):
Question:
Some concern groups on animal interests have said that the penalties under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) (the Ordinance) lack deterrent effect, and that the authorities have failed to provide sufficient resources to curb acts of cruelty to animals. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of animal cruelty cases in respect of which applications for appeal were lodged by the Department of Justice last year on the ground that the penalties imposed were too lenient, as well as the results of the appeals;
(2) given that at present the senior veterinary officers of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) are authorised to arrest any person who is suspected to have treated animals cruelly, as well as to enter and search the buildings where suspected cases of animal cruelty are occurring or have occurred, whether the Government will consider amending the Ordinance to authorise all officers of the Veterinary Officer grade in AFCD to exercise such powers concerned so as to enhance the efficiency of the law enforcement actions;
(3) whether it has plans to consider afresh establishing an animal police team which is dedicated to investigating and following up animal cruelty cases; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether it will consider enacting legislation to make it compulsory for persons who have been convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive psychological counselling and attend courses on promoting kindness to animals?
Reply:
President,
Over the years, the Government has been seeking to promote in the community a caring culture for animals to protect animal welfare. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) (the Ordinance) aims at combating acts of cruelty to animals. For the purpose of enhancing co-operation among the government departments and organisations concerned on this issue, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (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) (SPCA), set up a working group in 2011 to examine the work on handling such cases. The Police, in collaboration with the AFCD, the SPCA, veterinary associations and animal concern groups, introduced the Animal Watch Scheme in 2011 to step up the efforts in combatting animal cruelty cases.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) According to information provided by the Department of Justice (DoJ), it did not lodge any application to the court for review of sentences in respect of cruelty to animal cases in 2013. However, in accordance with section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap. 227), the DoJ applied to a magistrate to review his decision in one of such cases on the grounds that the penalty imposed was too lenient. The magistrate granted the application for a review and finally changed the original sentence from an imprisonment of three months to seven months.
(2) It is stipulated under sections 4(1) to 4(4) of the Ordinance that any senior veterinary officer may arrest any person suspected of cruelty to animals, seize any animal or article concerned, enter and search any building in which he may suspect that any offence against any provisions of the Ordinance is committed. According to the interpretation of the Ordinance, "senior veterinary officer" includes any veterinary officer authorised by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation to perform the duties of a senior veterinary officer under the Ordinance. At present, the AFCD goes about enforcing provisions in the Ordinance in a generally smooth manner. The Government has no plan to change the existing arrangement.
(3) Most of the animals involved in the reports on suspected cruelty to animals are stray cats and dogs found in secluded locations (such as rear lanes). That being the case, law enforcement officers will encounter difficulties in collecting and adducing evidence. That, however, does not deter them from making their best endeavours to conduct investigations for bringing to justice those who committed cruelty to animals. Investigations by the departments concerned showed that most of the cases reported did not involve cruelty to animals.
The Animal Watch Scheme introduced in 2011 as mentioned above aims to consolidate collaboration among various stakeholders and strengthen the Police's efforts in the investigation of animal cruelty cases. The Scheme is supported by two professional veterinary associations, namely the Hong Kong Veterinary Association and China (Hong Kong) Veterinary Association. Both associations encourage their members to report suspicious persons or suspected animal cruelty cases. All cases of cruelty to animals reported to the Police are currently investigated by crime investigation teams, which possess the professional knowhow and experience required to follow up cases of cruelty to animals amongst other criminal cases. Depending on the geographical distribution and profile of cases, the Police will consider deploying special teams to tackle the cases with a view to delivering early results through more focused and robust investigations. These arrangements allow the Police to deploy its limited resources flexibly in conjunction with the Scheme, thereby enhancing effectiveness in combating animal cruelty cases. Hence, the Government has no plan to establish an animal police team.
In fact, we consider that public education is most important for safeguarding and promoting animal welfare. To this end, the AFCD has established a dedicated team to devise, implement and fortify public education and publicity programmes for promoting care for animals and responsible pet ownership. The relevant activities include producing announcements in the public interest to be broadcast on TV and radio; advertising on such platforms as public transport, magazines and websites; organising promotional events in shopping arcades; regularly conducting village and community campaigns; holding talks in schools; as well as conducting annual surveys on pet care. We will continue our efforts in this regard.
(4) Currently the Government has no plan to amend the legislation to make it compulsory for persons convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive psychological counselling or attend courses on caring for animals. As the motives and underlying reasons for committing the offences could well vary in different cases, it may not be appropriate to require every person convicted of animal cruelty offences to receive mandatory psychological counselling.
Ends/Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Issued at HKT 17:30
NNNN
