Attorney General v. Lee Ah Fai

CAAR000016/1976

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Pickering, J.A., McMullin, Ag. J.A. & Leonard, J.

Date of Judgment: 8th September 1976.

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Pickering, J.A.:

1. The respondent was charged with cruelty to an animal contrary to s.31A of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), the particulars being that he spilled boiling water over a dog.

2. The learned magistrate convicted the respondent upon his plea of guilty but thereafter discharged him absolutely and the Attorney General applies for review of that discharge.

3. The respondent is a cook in a canteen attached to a golf club and his explanation for his action was that the dog had come into the kitchen, stolen food and urinated in the kitchen. Whilst these are no doubt matters of some provocation to a professional cook they could not justify his action in pouring boiling water on to the animal which, according to the veterinary surgeon, had severe burns on its abdomen. Amongst his Reasons for Sentence the learned magistrate said that the agreed facts referred to the spilling of water and not the deliberate pouring of boiling water. This observation appears to ignore the fact that the respondent pleaded guilty to the offence and also that the agreed facts contain the statement that the respondent had "spilled boiling water over that dog because it was urinating in the kitchen." One does not spill by accident "because".

4. The offence was not, as Mr. Lucas for the Crown said, the worst of its type but it was not so excusable as to warrant an absolute discharge. Having regard to the respondent's monthly earnings of $700 we considered that a fine of $150 would be appropriate, allowed the application, set aside the absolute discharge and substituted a fine in that amount.

Representation:

Lucas, Crown Counsel, for the applicant.

Respondent in person.