The Time is Now:
Why Hong Kong’s Animal Welfare Law Needs to Improve
By Amanda Whitfort, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong and Co-Chair of the SPCA Executive Committee
Animals aren’t simply property. For families across Hong Kong, animals are companions, protectors and an important part of daily life. Non-pet owners also benefit from responsible pet ownership and a shared interest in preventing animal cruelty in general.
Hong Kong’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) has become outdated. Its focus on punishment after physical or psychological harm has already caused “unnecessary suffering” makes it no longer fit for purpose. This creates serious gaps in practice.
The primary problem: the law waits until harm has occurred to step in
Cap. 169 prohibits cruelty and neglect only in terms of “unnecessary suffering”. This has made prosecutions difficult as it can be hard to prove cruelty to the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt.
More concerning is that the law is largely silent on how animals should be cared for. This means enforcement authorities often struggle to intervene early in cases where suffering is likely, but the situation hasn’t yet reached the point where criminal cruelty can be proven at court.
In short: animals may suffer while the system waits for the worst to happen.
What SPCA is calling for: Reform of Cap. 169 and introducing Duty of Care
The SPCA proposes modernising Cap. 169 so animal welfare is protected before a crisis occurs.
A key part of this reform is a legal duty of care; a straightforward obligation that people responsible for animals provide reasonable and appropriate standards of animal care. With this in place, authorised officers would be empowered to issue improvement notices to animal keepers who fail to meet basic welfare standards.
Early intervention may prevent animals reaching the point of serious harm and would reduce the need for lengthy prosecutions, helping animals recover faster when action is taken early.
To support the public to meet their duty of care, the SPCA calls for Codes of Practice that provide practical guidance on caring for different species in different circumstances, helping owners and non-owners alike understand what responsible care requires.
Other gaps that currently leave animals at risk
Even when animals have been seized, or abuse is suspected, the current legal tools are lacking. The SPCA highlights several critical areas for reform:
Cost avoidance through destruction:
Currently there is no legal mechanism for those who rescue animals from cruelty to recover their costs from day one of care. If an owner is convicted, there is a loophole that allows an owner to avoid compensating rescuers for the subsequent necessary expenses of keeping an animal by instructing authorities to humanely destroy the animal after their conviction.
Insufficient enforcement powers and capacity:
Authorities need improved powers for entry, investigation, and early intervention, allowing the removal of animals at risk of suffering before harm occurs.
No ban on future animal contact:
Even after cruelty convictions, the law does not currently provide a power to ban convicted offenders from keeping, working with, owning, or being in charge of animals in the future, where the animals would be at risk.
Legal but harmful practices:
The SPCA is concerned that some practices may be legal but unethical and harmful. These include “cosmetic” mutilations, cruel devices (such as electric shock collars), and other actions that cause unnecessary pain or risk serious injury. These should be banned altogether.
Animal abandonment and poisoning:
Protection against abandonment and animal poisoning are lacking. Specific and clear offences are required that also provide strong deterrence.
Cruelty occurring online and internationally:
Animal abuse material distributed online, through social media channels or via the “dark web” is increasingly reported. As is often the case with child sexual abuse, the law should address the international transmission of animal abuse by making it an offence to produce, commission, possess, view and distribute animal abuse material including videos, live streams and images. The legitimate possession or viewing of such law enforcement purposes would still be permitted.
Time limits restrict prosecution of cases:
Cap. 169 treats serious animal cruelty as a summary offence, limiting the time to charge offenders. The SPCA calls for the removal of the six-month time limit and the ability to classify serious animal cruelty as an indictable offence.
Private premises cases:
On occasion there have been cases involving animal abuse within private premises where it is unclear which of the persons responsible for the animal committed the offence, and all parties interviewed have remained silent. To deal with these types of cases, consideration should be given to introducing an offence of failing to protect an animal from abuse.
Lack of early release mechanisms:
When abused animals are seized by authorities, there is no clear mechanism to consider early release before court proceedings are completed. Animals may be held for months, or even years, affecting welfare and sometimes reducing chances of rehoming.
Reform that balances prevention and punishment
The SPCA is not asking to soften cruelty rules. Animal cruelty must remain a serious crime, but the law should also set welfare requirements for all animals. Our goal is to modernise the law, so it works better for animals, and for Hong Kong, combining:
- Education, welfare standards
and Duty of Care (so problems are addressed early), and - Strengthened offences and better enforcement
(so deliberate and avoidable cruelty is punished effectively), including higher penalties, disqualification orders, and consequences for repeated non-compliance.
Our goal to ensure animals are protected proactively –
not only after harm has already occurred.
Please support the SPCA’s drive to push for the full reform of Cap. 169 in Hong Kong
