The SPCA’s Proposed Reforms to Cap. 169 

At present, a person convicted of animal cruelty may be deprived of the animal they abused, but there is no clear legal mechanism to prevent them from continuing to own, keep, handle, work with, or otherwise be in charge of animals in the future.

This creates an obvious risk to other animals.

The law should therefore allow the court to make disqualification orders in appropriate cases banning a person from:

• Owning animals
• Keeping animals
• Working with animals
• Being in charge of animals
• Otherwise having responsibility for animals

This is an important safeguard to reduce the risk of further abuse and protect animals from repeat offenders.

Some harmful practices and forms of conduct are either not specifically addressed under the current law or are not addressed clearly enough. New specific offences should be introduced to prevent unnecessary suffering and better protect animals from avoidable harm.

These should include the following:

• Ban unnecessary mutilations
  Certain mutilations that cause unnecessary suffering — such as ear cropping in dogs — should be prohibited.
  Any person who performs, arranges, permits, or allows such prohibited procedures to be carried out should be liable to prosecution. Import or possession of such mutilated animals should also be banned.
• Prohibit cruel devices
  The use of devices that cause unnecessary pain or distress, such as electric shock collars, should be made illegal.
• Create a specific offence of poisoning animals
  Poisoning cases are no longer uncommon in Hong Kong. The law should therefore include a specific offence relating to the poisoning of animals.
  This offence should cover not only the act of poisoning an animal, but also intentional conduct, including cases where poison is deliberately used or placed in circumstances likely to harm animals or is possessed in a public place without a reasonable excuse.
• Make abandonment a clear offence for all animals
  Animal abandonment is currently only partially addressed under Cap. 421 (the Rabies Ordinance), and its scope is limited because it applies only to mammals.
  Abandonment should instead be made a specific offence under Cap. 169, and it should apply to all animals, not only mammals.
• Address online and cross-border animal abuse
  With increased globalisation and digital connectivity, new forms of animal abuse are emerging. In some cases, abuse may be commissioned, facilitated, viewed, or distributed online across different jurisdictions. One party may arrange or view the abuse from one location, while the actual abuse takes place somewhere else.

  Much like developments in the law relating to child abuse material, consideration should be given to creating offences that make it illegal to:

  • Commission acts that would amount to animal abuse in Hong Kong
  • View animal abuse material
  • Distribute animal abuse material
  • Otherwise facilitate this type of abuse through online or cross-border channels

The law should ensure that the relevant authorities and enforcement bodies have sufficient powers to carry out investigations and take timely action where animals are at risk.

These powers should include:

• Powers of entry
• Powers to assist with investigations
• Powers to remove animals that are at risk of serious harm if their situation does not improve
• Expand the powers to seize animals suspected of having been abused

These powers are essential to allow earlier and more effective intervention, especially in cases where the risk is clear but serious suffering has not yet occurred.

The legislation should be flexible enough to allow authorised officers to be appointed to assist in carrying out certain functions under the law.

This may include, for example:

• Assisting with welfare-related interventions
• Giving guidance to owners and keepers
• Issuing Improvement Notices
• Supporting compliance with duty of care requirements

This would help ensure that practical welfare concerns can be addressed efficiently and consistently.

Currently, offences under Cap. 169 are treated as summary offences. Although the legislation does not expressly set a prosecution time limit, the authorities are in practice barred from bringing charges more than six months after the incident.

This creates a serious enforcement gap. In cases of physical abuse, neglect and abandonment, it may be difficult to identify or locate suspects within that period, allowing offenders to avoid prosecution through evasion. The six-month time bar should be removed.

Serious animal cruelty should not be limited to summary treatment. The law should provide that serious cruelty can be prosecuted as an indictable offence.

This would better reflect the seriousness of the conduct, strengthen the prosecution framework, and help ensure that more serious cases can be dealt with appropriately.

The maximum penalties under the law — including both imprisonment and fines — should be increased and used in serious cases.

SPCA supports animal cruelty being triable on indictment, with higher penalties available as a deterrent.

Clear sentencing guidelines should be introduced to assist the courts in determining appropriate penalties for convicted offenders.

These guidelines should identify the factors that need to be taken into account, including for example:

• Whether the offence took place in a commercial context
• The number of animals involved
• The degree of suffering caused
• The duration of suffering
• Any other aggravating features of the case

This would help promote consistency and ensure that serious cases are treated with appropriate severity.

The law should allow the court to impose disqualification orders preventing convicted offenders from owning, keeping, handling, working with, or being in charge of animals.

This is an important protective measure and should form part of the available penalty framework.

Repeated failure to comply with Improvement Notices should attract a meaningful sanction.

If Improvement Notices are to function effectively as part of a preventive enforcement system, there must be consequences for those who repeatedly ignore them.

Currently, there is no formal mechanism under Cap. 169 requiring offenders to pay restitution or contribute to the pre-conviction costs of caring for animals they have abused. In practice, these expenses are borne by the organisations or parties caring for seized animals. The Ordinance also allows an owner to request that the animal be destroyed, in which case no fees are payable for its maintenance or treatment after that request is made. As many abused animals require immediate veterinary care, rehabilitation, and prolonged holding pending the outcome of court proceedings, these pre-conviction costs are often substantial and may exceed post-conviction costs.

A statutory measure should therefore be introduced to allow the court to order a convicted defendant to compensate for, or contribute to, the reasonable pre-conviction costs of care. These should include veterinary treatment, medication, rehabilitation, boarding, transport, and daily maintenance. This would ensure that offenders bear a fairer share of the financial consequences of their conduct, rather than leaving charities and other caring parties to absorb the costs.