THE EDITOR: Recent video footage of West Ham footballer Kurt Zouma kicking and slapping his pet cat has sparked outrage in the minds of right-thinking individuals across the world. Such horrific scenes are not alien to us as in April 2020, a video posted on social media showed three men hanging a dog from a tree until dead.

The story created a massive outcry in relation to animal cruelty and the lack of adequate punishment for offenders. At the time the only applicable statute to prosecute offences related to cruelty to animals was the Summary Offences Act, Ch 11:02 (sections 78 to 84) which provided trifling penalties. For instance, section 79 specified that any person who cruelly beats, ill-treats, abuses or tortures any animal was liable to a fine of $400 or to three months imprisonment.

The legislative response was swift. In May 2020, the Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 2020 was passed which increased the penalties for offences under sections 79, 80 and 83 of the Summary Offences Act to $100,000 and to imprisonment for one year.

However, Parliament was not finished and later in July 2020, Senator Clarence Rambharat piloted an amendment to the Animals (Diseases and Importation) Act, Ch 67:02 that sought to introduce a new Part IIIA.

This part dealt with the issue of animal welfare and was intended to supersede the animal cruelty provisions in the Summary Offences Act, with even stiffer penalties on summary conviction of a $200,000 fine and five years imprisonment.

Although during the parliamentary debates passing reference was made to the incident involving the hanging dog, it appears to have escaped everyone that the three offenders were not charged with an animal cruelty offence contrary to section 79 of the Summary Offences Act.

Rather, they were charged for the offence of unlawful and malicious killing of a dog, contrary to section 16 of the Summary Offences Act. The penalty for an offence under section 16 is a fine of $1,000 or three months imprisonment on first conviction and on any subsequent conviction to imprisonment for six months.

In October 2020, the three men pleaded guilty before Magistrate Anslem Leander and were each sentenced to pay a fine of $400 or in default to serve three months in prison for the killing of the dog.

Ironically, Parliament neglected to make any amendment to the penalties available for the section 16 offence of unlawful killing of an animal, and so, we are faced with an apparent anomaly in the sentencing regime as it relates to animal welfare.

As it stands, if you cruelly ill-treat an animal you can face a maximum fine of $200,000 or five years in prison, but if you unlawfully and maliciously kill an animal then the maximum penalty is a fine of $1,000 or three months imprisonment. Can this lacuna in the law be remedied, please?

BRENT D WINTER

attorney

The post Sentencing disparity between ill-treating and killing animals appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.