A 44-year-old father who killed his pet cat by slamming it into the ground after the cat had scratched his son’s face was sentenced to two and a half months in jail. The father, pleaded guilty at the West Kowloon Magistrate’s Court to one count of animal cruelty, contrary to section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap 169.

The man, with an Exit-Entry Permit for travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao (EEP) (also known as a two-way permit (TWP)) had been accused of throwing his cat onto the ground in his home earlier in January 2023. The defendant came to Hong Kong with an EEP in 2020, lives with his son, and owns a domestic cat approximately 1 year old.

On January 28, 2023, the defendant argued with his son about whether they should continue owning a domestic cat. The defendant claimed that he threw the cat because the cat had not onloy scratched him, but had previously scratched his 17 year old teen in the face. After throwing the cat, he then called the police. The cat was found dead on the same date, with the autopsy indicating part of the brain was exposed, bruises were found in its jaw, and lots of fractures were found.

The defendant had claimed and believed that the cat would become ferocious when it grew and therefore wanted to release the cat. His son disagreed, leading to an argument. The defendant then carried the cat from behind, and threw the cat onto the ground and caused it to bleed.

In mitigation, the defendant claimed that the cat had previously scratched his son prior to this incident. He threw the cat onto the ground out of agitation. It was emphasised that he did not premeditate the happening of the incident and did not use any weapons to abuse his cat. After this event occurred, he took the initiative to call the police, hoping that the cat would be saved. The defendant also argued that the case affected his one-way permit application.

The Chief Magistrate - Heung Shuk Han Veronica, pointed out the seriousness of this case. She noted that at the time of the incident, the defendant used his strength to throw the cat onto the ground and reprimanded his brutal act. She added the act of a cat scratching a human belongs to normal behaviour; and that it did not provide a valid excuse or explanation

Under normal circumstances, a cat will not be injured jumping off from high objects. However, the cat was found dead after being thrown just a few feet to the ground through the hands of the defendant. One can quite easily imagine the force being exerted by the defendant at that time, which led to multiple fractures on the cat. The defendant’s motive to do such an act was to abreact his emotions.

The Magistrate accepted that this incident belonged to a one-off inexorable incident. In considering the appropriate sentence, the Magistrate considered that the defendant did not use any weapons, had taken the initiative to report the crime he has committed, was a first offender and pleaded guilty, the appropriate sentence to be imposed was one of 2.5 months of imprisonment.

Reflection

As a civilised society, Hong Kong shall not tolerate anyone who cruelly treats animals. However, and despite the existence of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap 169 - it does not mean that there are any fewer cases of animal cruelty. There still exists a number of legal loopholes for those who commit acts of cruelty against animals to exploit. Furthermore, despite the maximum sentence able to be imposed for this sort of offending rests at 3 years’ imprisonment, the Courts in Hong Kong have still been extremely hesitant to hand down sentences that would create any deterrence.

But is Hong Kong's current animal welfare legislation sufficient in protecting the vulnerable and those who could not speak for themselves? Should the penalty for taking the life of an innocent cat only be worth 2.5 months imprisonment?

Does Hong Kong’s animal-centric legislation have enough bite?

Courtesy of Eufrosina Liu

Main Source: The Standard