SINGAPORE - A man has been found guilty of subjecting his pet dog to unnecessary suffering by keeping it in his apartment balcony, causing it to be exposed to the sun and rain. The dog was also not provided with adequate food and water.
Roy Ling Chung Yee was convicted of animal cruelty and fined $5,000.
Here is the full press release from SPCA about the case:
Convicted of Animal Cruelty
On Aug 20, 2013, Judge Ng Peng Hong ruled in favour of the Prosecution when he found Roy Ling Chung Yee guilty of subjecting his pet dog to unnecessary suffering by keeping it in the apartment balcony, exposing it to sun and rain, and not providing it with adequate food and water.
Mr Ling was convicted of animal cruelty under section 42(1)(e) of the Animals and Birds Act, Chapter 7, and fined $5,000.
The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) was first notified in June 2011 by a concerned resident at the condominium known as 88 Mackenzie that the dog, a Border Collie, was seen almost every day on the balcony and exposed to the sun and rain.
Another two residents of the same condominium stepped forward to complain to the SPCA of observing the same Border Collie confined to the balcony daily and even in the evenings.
A fourth person, a property executive of the condo, claimed she received reports from other concerned residents of the dog's incessant barking and continual confinement to the balcony.
The SPCA's inspectors attempted to contact Mr Ling several times but he did not respond. We then alerted the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) in August 2011. In the course of the next three months we proceeded to gather evidence, namely, photographs and video recordings and submitted them as proof of the situation to the AVA. AVA's own inspectors and vets also visited Mr Ling and advised Mr Ling to improve the living conditions of his pet dog.
The SPCA continued to submit feedback to the AVA as we received more reports of Mr Ling continuing to keep his pet dog in the balcony.
In December 2011, the SPCA lodged a Police Report and Magistrate' Complaint.
AVA visited the premises 6 times at different times of the day including 12.30am and 3am in the mornings during the investigation. AVA was able to proceed with the charge against Roy Ling because of the testimonial evidence of the various witnesses, including the residents and SPCA's expert witnesses, that supported the evidence that AVA had.
AVA referred the matter to the AG's Chambers who took the decision to prosecute Mr Ling.