An animal cruelty case at Lee Kee Building in Ngau Tau Kok has recently concluded with a conviction and sentencing. A night-shift security guard was asked by a resident for help after a cat wandered into an apartment. However, he later claimed that he found the situation troublesome and did not know how to handle it. He placed the cat—which was still alive at the time but unresponsive—into two plastic bags and threw it into a garbage bin at the building’s refuse collection area. The cat has never been found.
The 62-year-old male security guard earlier pleaded guilty to one count of cruelty to animals and was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment at Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Courts.
Pet Cat Escaped While Family Was Taking Out the Trash; Owner Uncovered Incident
According to the case details, the cat belonged to a resident surnamed Lui who lived on the 9th floor of Lee Kee Building. On the evening of August 6, 2025, the cat allegedly slipped out while family members were taking out the rubbish.
When the owner returned home from work the following day, family members informed him that the cat was missing. He immediately posted missing pet notices.
Later, a neighbour reviewed CCTV footage and discovered that the cat had entered another apartment on the same floor. The footage showed the then-night-shift security guard entered the unit and later left carrying a tied black plastic bag. During the incident, he did not ask nearby residents whether anyone had lost a cat before taking the elevator downstairs.
The cat’s owner later approached the building’s security supervisor for an explanation, only to learn that the guard had already left his job. The owner subsequently reported the matter to the police.
Guard Said He Found It Troublesome and Threw the Live Cat Away as Trash
After being arrested, the defendant admitted that a resident on the 9th floor had sought his assistance regarding a cat that had entered their apartment.
He claimed that he had asked other residents whether the cat belonged to them, but nobody came forward to claim it. He then decided to dispose of the animal because, in his words, “I felt it was very troublesome and didn’t know how to handle it.”
Although the cat was still alive, it was unresponsive at the time. The defendant placed it in two plastic bags and discarded it in a garbage bin at the ground-floor refuse station.
Because the bin had no lid and the garbage had already been collected and removed, the cat could no longer be recovered.
Defendant Claimed He Was Misled by Supervisor; Judge Questioned the Explanation
Sentence was deferred following the defendant’s earlier guilty plea. During mitigation, the defence argued that the defendant had a poor understanding of the law and had merely followed instructions from a supervisor, that he was misled into committing the offence and urged the court to consider a non-custodial sentence.
The magistrate expressed skepticism, remarking:
“And yet he worked as a security guard? Security guards are like police on duty. Is he blaming his supervisor? Like blindly following orders like the military?”
The magistrate then clarified that she was not suggesting the military blindly followed orders, but emphasised that the defendant should have exercised independent judgment. The court even raised the possibility of calling the supervisor to testify. The defence ultimately withdrew the argument that the defendant had been misled.
The defense further argued there was no direct evidence showing the cat had suffered pain or injury, and contended that the case was less severe than cases involving beating dogs or deliberate torture and killing of animals. Counsel also noted that the defendant had resigned voluntarily out of guilt after the incident and requested a non-custodial sentence such as a community service order.
Judge: Cat Was Likely Sent to Landfill; Imprisonment Unavoidable
In sentencing, the magistrate rejected the defence’s arguments, stating that there was absolutely no necessity for the defendant to throw the cat into a garbage bin.
Given that the rubbish had already been removed, the court concluded that the cat was likely transported to a landfill with the garbage and had died. The magistrate stated that the defendant had effectively taken the cat’s life, adding that the emotional harm suffered by the owner due to the cat’s death was an aggravating factor.
The court therefore found that a custodial sentence was unavoidable.
Although the defendant suffered from chronic cardiovascular disease and had previously received commendations for his work performance from the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong, the court held that these personal circumstances did not constitute significant mitigating factors.
The defendant was ultimately sentenced to four months in prison.
