Broadcast News Network interviewed Mr Gordon Chan on the practical difficulties of extending “disqualification orders” to keepers whose dogs cause death or serious injury through negligent control.
In an interview with Broadcast News Network, Mr Gordon Chan discussed recent fatal dog attacks and the government’s proposal to introduce disqualification orders limited to convictions for cruelty under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap 169). While some have called for the power to be widened to cases of negligent control, he pointed out that enforcement would face real difficulties.
The core problem is definition and proof. Negligent control covers a wide spectrum of facts, from a momentary lapse to prolonged and obvious disregard of risk. A power that turns on “negligence” without a clear statutory threshold risks inconsistent application. Some cases of serious injury may not meet the test, while minor or contested incidents may trigger lengthy disputes about whether the keeper’s conduct crossed the line. Existing control offences under the Rabies Ordinance (Cap 421) and the Dangerous Dogs Regulation (Cap 167D) are largely regulatory and do not themselves provide a ready platform for a general ban. Any broader disqualification power would therefore need a defined trigger (for example, a conviction for a specific offence resulting in death or serious injury) and a requirement that the court be satisfied that a continuing risk exists, together with a right to seek variation or review.
Expanding disqualification orders beyond cruelty convictions is not impossible, but the practical difficulty lies in drawing a workable line between accident and serious neglect so that the power remains both enforceable and proportionate.
Gordon Chan, Esq
Barrister-at-law, Archbold Hong Kong Editor on Public Health, and Member of the Bar Association's Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure. Specialised in medical, technology and criminal law.
