The Sri Lankan Cabinet has recently passed the long-awaited Animal Welfare Bill (the ‘New Bill’) which was first drafted in 2006.

The New Bill

The New Bill contains some remarkable breakthroughs in comparison to the current century-old Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance 1907 (the ‘Old Law’). For example, the New Bill broadens the legal definition for ‘animal’ to encompass any living being other than a human whereas the Old Law adopted a narrower definition, only including domestic or captured animals. The broadened definition means more animals will be afforded protection in the future such as the three million stray dogs wandering the streets (according to Animal SOS Sri Lanka).

Moreover, the New Bill includes several new offences, holding people accountable for acts and behaviours such as the abandonment of animals, wilful deprivation of food and water to an animal, castration or sterilization unless by a veterinary surgeon, confinement of a bird by ring, chain, string, cord or wire attached to its legs etc.

In addition, the current fine for animal cruelty is Sri Lankan Rupee 100 (approx. HKD $3.85) or a sentence not exceeding 3 months. The new Bill raised the fine to a maximum of Sri Lankan Rupee 150,000 (approx. HKD $57,778) and a sentence up to 4 years. The increase of the maximum fine and sentence at such an exponential rate perhaps shows the determination for Sri Lanka to scrutinize Animal abuse closer and stricter.  

Furthermore, the current regulation is a two-tier process whereby a complaint will first have to be made to the Police before an action for cruelty against animals can be filed. This means, the Police’s action is somehow contingent upon someone voicing out and passive. The New Bill allows individual or a group of individuals to do the same without having to go through a regulatory department, making the mechanism a more direct and time efficient one.  

Some says the passing of the Bill is just the beginning. This is because the Cabinet’s act of passing does not mean an automatic enactment. The timeline is that the Bill will have to be published in the Government gazette and subsequently submitted to the Parliament for approval.

Despite the time it takes, the passing of the Bill is significant to animals in Sri Lanka as the Country often makes news headline for animal welfare related matters. For example, a video of an elephant in an elephant sanctuary being dragged into the water by its ear went viral on Twitter recently.

However, it is worth noting that the New Bill made wilful deprivation of food and water to an animal an offence. The wilfulness element carries a degree of intention on the offender’s behalf. Whereas in Hong Kong, for an animal cruelty action under S.3(1)(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap.169) to succeed, it is not necessary to prove an offender’s intention. The threshold in Hong Kong’s Law is arguably lower and the test is an objective one. This means it is sufficient to show a reasonable person would have realised the risk that the animal might suffer as a result of his actions.

Comparing the New Bill to other jurisdictions

The UK’s Animal Welfare Act 2006 is wide in scope and some elements of the day-to-day lives of animals also fall within its ambit. For example, owners and keepers must make sure the needs of the animal is provided for. This includes a suitable environment and place to live, a suitable diet, to be protected from injury etc. This shows that the law does not only protect animals from physical abuse that has materialized, but also abuses that may not be apparent but are by no means tolerable.

Should Hong Kong follow suit and implement similar obligations, in other words, a positive ‘Duty of care’ on owners and keepers to take reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of the animal is well taken care of? This may be an ideal approach as it is proactive in terms of educating the public and it shifts towards promoting and protecting animals instead of only reacting to harm or abuses that has already been suffered.   

In fact, HKALPO has included such issues in their Submissions on the amendment to the Prevention to Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, Cap 169. dated July 2020, advocating for enhanced provisions for cruelty.

Also, it is not uncommon to see offenders being fined or sentenced to jail. In Hong Kong, a convicted offender may not be able to keep the victim animal anymore. In the UK, anyone who does not provide for an animal’s welfare needs may be banned from owning animals under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The latter is more deterrent and detrimental in nature.

Furthermore, similar to the New Bill, the abandonment of animals in Hong Kong without reasonable excuse is also a criminal offence pursuant to S.22(1) of the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421). It is not necessary to show the animal suffered from mistreatment before it is abandoned.

Conclusion

All in all, while celebrating for the success of the New Bill, activists may still have a long way to fight for the better protection of animals. On the other hand, Hong Kong may refer to provisions from other Common Law jurisdictions and seek to move forward and towards a more proactive approach with protecting animals.