(to return to lexborneo.com click this link)
Dear Lex,
Recently on a road trip to Kudat I saw 3 men beating a dog to death with iron pipes. It was a very horrible sight and most traumatic for my 15 year old daughter who accompanied me on this school holiday trip. Besides spoiling our trip she has recurrent nightmares since that day. Do animals in Sabah have rights under the law?
The Beast Within
On 1st May 1925 the Legislative Assembly of Borneo passed the the Cruelty to Animals (Prevention) Ordinance to provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Let us review some of these provisions.
Q1) What is the meaning of the word ‘animal’ under the Ordinance?
In this Ordinance, “animal” means any bird, beast, fish, reptile or insect, whether wild or tame.
Q2) What is the penalty under the Ordinance for cruelty to animals?
Under Section 3 every person shall be guilty of an offence -
(a) who shall cruelly beat, ill-treat, torture, overdrive or overload, or cause or procure to be beaten, ill-treated, tortured, over-driven or overladen any animal;
(b) who, being in charge of any animal in course of transport from one place to another, neglects to supply such animal with sufficient food or water;
(c) who shall carry or cause to be carried any animal in such a manner or position as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering;
(d) who shall employ or cause to be employed in any work or labour any animal which in consequence of any disease, infirmity, wound, sore or otherwise is unfit to be so employed;
(e) who, being in charge of any animal in confinement, causes any unnecessary suffering by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act, or neglects to supply sufficient and proper food and water to such animal;
and shall for every such offence be liable, on conviction before a Magistrate, to a fine of five hundred ringgit and to imprisonment for six months.
Q3) What is the power of the Government to prevent cruelty to animals?
Under Section 4 any Government Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Inspector or urban authority officers and any police officer in whose view an offence has been or is being committed may arrest the offender without warrant, and any animal in respect of which and any conveyance or article with or by means of which such offence has been committed may be seized by such officer.
b) Any person so arrested shall be forthwith taken to a police station. Any animal, conveyance or article so seized may be taken to a police station or in the case of an animal to a pound or to an infirmary, and may be there detained until the accused has been tried. All offences under this Ordinance shall be deemed to be bailable offences.
Q4) What orders can be made in respect of the animal or animals by a Magistrate when an offence has been committed?
Under Section 8 of the Ordinance when any person has been convicted by a Magistrate of an offence against any of the preceding sections of this Ordinance the Magistrate may order -
(a) that the animal in respect of which the offence was committed be taken to an infirmary and there detained for any period stated in such order or until released by further order of a Magistrate or until a Government Veterinary Surgeon has certified in writing that it may properly be released; or
(b) if there be no infirmary to which the animal can conveniently be taken, that the animal be not used during such period as may be stated in such order or until permission to use it has been given by a Magistrate or a Government Veterinary Surgeon; or
(c) if the Magistrate is satisfied that the animal is incurably diseased or injured, that such animal be destroyed forthwith by or under the direction of a police officer or Government Veterinary Officer, and that the cost of burying or otherwise disposing of the carcase be borne by the person convicted; or
(d) if the Magistrate is satisfied that any animal has not been kept in a proper or humane manner, that such animal be removed and delivered into the custody of some other person either permanently or for such period as may be specified in the order.
Q5) Who is liable for cost of maintenance and treatment of an animal in an infirmary?
If any animal has been taken to an infirmary, any person who has been convicted of an offence in respect of such animal shall be liable to pay the prescribed fees for its maintenance and treatment for so long as it shall remain therein: provided that if the owner of such animal shall request in writing the officer in charge of the infirmary to destroy such animal, and shall pay to such officer any fee that may be prescribed for the destruction or burial of such kind of animal, such officer shall forthwith cause the animal to be destroyed.
Q6) What are the powers of veterinary officers or Magistrates to order destruction of animals?
Under Section 9, any veterinary officer or Magistrate if satisfied by personal inspection that any animal is diseased or injured, and that the disease or injury from which the animal is suffering is incurable, may by order in writing direct that such animal be destroyed, and such order may forthwith be carried out by or under the direction of such officer or of any police officer
Q7) Who is responsible to pay for recovery of expenses of removal and burial of animals destroyed?
If any animal be destroyed in pursuance of an order, the expense of the removal and burial of the carcase of such animal shall be paid by the owner or person in charge of the animal.
Q8) Suppose it turns out later that the person who requested for the destruction of the animal is not actually the true owner. Can the true owner when he finds out claim for compensation?
Under Section 10 no compensation for destruction of an animal incurably injured or destroyed at request of professed owners.
No compensation shall in any case be payable to any person in respect of the destruction of any animal in pursuance of an order made by a Magistrate, or in compliance with a request in writing addressed to an officer in charge of an infirmary by any person professing to be the owner of such animal; provided that in the last case that the officer in charge of the infirmary in good faith believed that the person making the request was in fact the owner.
Q9) If you witness an incident of animal cruelty taking place what should you do?
You have the right to file a complaint with any Government Veterinary Surgeon, Veterinary Inspector or urban authority officers and any police officer or Magistrate in respect of the offence. In fact under Section 11 of the Ordinance you are entitled to receive an award as reward for your efforts in the prevention of animal cruelty. The Court by which any fine is imposed may award any portion not being more than half thereof to you as the informer.
Although the Ordinance has defined the meaning of what is cruelty to animals the following checklist may be further useful:-
1. No animal should be exposed to strong light or heat or be deprived of adequate warmth.
2. No animal should be displayed in a cage, hutch, box or other receptacle in such position as to expose it to interference or annoyance by persons or animals.
Accommodation provided for animals must be in every respect suitable as regards size, temperature, lighting, ventilation, cleanliness and exercise.
3. Animals must not be transported in plastic-bags or other unsuitable containers.
4. All animals must be suitably fed and watered at least once every 12 hours, except where an adequate supply of food and fresh water is constantly available, and all animals must be visited at least once every 12 hours.
5. No animal which is suffering from or could reasonably be suspected of having come into contact with any animal suffering from any infectious disease may be brought and kept unless it is effectively isolated from the other animals.
6. Where animals are kept in cages, hutches, boxes or other receptacles placed on top of other cages, hutches, boxes or other receptacles effective means must be provided for preventing water, food or excreta falling onto or contaminating the animals or other surroundings which are underneath.
7. No animal should be sold to anyone under the age of 10 years, nor to anyone obviously unsuitable to take care of the animal.
8. No animal with any obvious significant abnormality likely to affect its quality of life may be offered for sale. When in doubt veterinary advice should be sought.
DECIDED CASES
Lex Borneo has found one case of animal cruelty decided in Singapore in the late 90s. The law applied in this case would be different from the provisions of the Sabah Cruelty to Animals (Prevention) Ordinance. Nevertheless the case would be relevant in showing that the Court in Singapore imposed a custodial sentence of a jail term and not just a fine. The provision of penalty in Sabah actually goes further than that as it provides for a fine of five hundred ringgit and to imprisonment for six months.
This is what the judge said in the Singapore case” Here is a man who apparently imagining some insult or injury done to his son by a little brown dog took it into his head to seek his revenge on the animal. He had, so it would seem, the cunning to wait till the early hours of the morning, when the dog was chained up and defenceless, and its owner nowhere about. He had strength enough to beat the dog with a metal stand and leave it with serious injuries. And if his record of previous convictions is anything to go by, he must also be a man of consistent beliefs in this case, namely, the belief that violence solves most ills and ‘might is right’.
I have considered the case carefully and am unable to find anything which might excuse the respondent’s behavior. I do not agree with the assertion that the accused’s case merited a mere fine and not a custodial sentence because he showed only a warped sense of justice’ instead of a ‘perverted desire to torture’. I do not see how the former sentiment is any less appalling than the latter. We are not so inured in apathy that the savage beating of an animal may arouse our outrage only if it involved some form of torture. Our criminal law is dedicated, after all, not only to preventing cases of extreme depravity but also the more commonplace acts of cruelty committed by thugs like the respondent.
Finally, I wish to make clear that I am taking into account the respondent’s two previous convictions for voluntarily causing hurt. I have said before that previous convictions will be considered if they share a common element; and in this case, as I indicated earlier, the respondent’s previous convictions under section 323 of the Penal Code (Cap 244) disclose the same propensity to violence he has shown in the present offence.
In short, I am of the view that the accused’s case calls for a custodial sentence. The accused is hereby sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with effect from today. I also order that the maximum fine of SING $500 already paid by him should be paid over to the dog’s owner, Madam Lim Yeok Lan, by way of compensation. “
NEW YEAR RESOLUTION 2007 : BE KIND TO ANIMALS.
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007 TO ALL READERS OF BORNEO POST AND LEX BORNEO
