Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Tighten regime that disqualifies abusers from owning animals

I refer to the report, “Dog abuser pleads with judge not to ban her from keeping pets” (Sept 18).
This case raises the question of whether the regime of disqualification orders under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) is enough to protect the interests of animals.

Singapore’s regime that disqualifies abusers from owning animals stands in stark contrast to the United Kingdom’s, says the writer.

Singapore’s regime that disqualifies abusers from owning animals stands in stark contrast to the United Kingdom’s, says the writer.

Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
Goh Jia Jie

I refer to the report, “Dog abuser pleads with judge not to ban her from keeping pets” (Sept 18).

This case raises the question of whether the regime of disqualification orders under the Animals and Birds Act (ABA) is enough to protect the interests of animals.

At present, under section 43B(1) of the ABA, the court may issue a disqualification order against a person, upon conviction of animal-cruelty offences, that disqualifies him or her from owning any animal or any class of animals for up to 12 months.

This is in stark contrast to the regime in the United Kingdom, where the courts have wide discretion to determine the duration of a disqualification order and can even impose “lifelong” orders.

It is for the person convicted of animal-cruelty offences to apply to the court after a year to terminate or vary the order. Upon such an application, the court will determine — considering various factors such as the convicted person’s character, past behaviour, propensity to reoffend, and rehabilitation — whether to terminate or vary the disqualification order or dismiss the application altogether.

It is also pertinent to note that in a recent decision, the UK High Court emphasised that disqualification orders are to protect animals, rather than be punitive to defendants. It held that a seven-year disqualification order in that case, which involved the neglect of animals, was not arbitrary or excessive.

Singapore adopts the common law, and hence, UK cases dealing with similar provisions are relevant, persuasive and helpful authorities for Singapore's courts when making their determinations.

Under proposed animal-welfare laws, Hong Kong’s courts will also from 2021 be given the power to disqualify a person convicted of an animal-cruelty offence from keeping animals for a specified period or even permanently.

In the context of Singapore, is our present regime under the ABA striking a balance between animal protection and a person’s right to own an animal? I think not.

Have views on this issue or a news topic you care about? Send your letter to voices [at] mediacorp.com.sg with your full name, address and phone number.

Related topics

animal cruelty pet Animals and Birds Act Singapore laws

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to our newsletter for the top features, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.