KUALA LUMPUR: A dog breeder lost 13 pedigrees under his care after the High Court here Tuesday, ordered the canines be handed over to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

This was following an appeal against an earlier judgment on June 6, when dog breeder Lau Choo Kee, 46 was ordered by the Magistrate's Court here to pay a fine of RM200 for cruelty to animals, as the dogs were bred in cramped conditions and suffering from skin disease.

The nine bitches and four male pedigrees comprise English Bull Terriers, Golden Retrievers, Bulldogs, Labradors, St Bernards and Basset Hounds.

Lau from Taman Taynton View Cheras had pleaded guilty to the charge and agreed to pay RM1,300 treatment costs for the dogs.

However, Lau's counsel M.Mohan Ghandi told the High Court his client had made the confession while unrepresented.

"Thus, if the magistrate (Nurulizwan Mohd Zubir)'s orders was to be changed -- a retrial should be held," Mohan told judge Datuk Abdull Hamid Embong.

Mohan said Lau was looking after the dogs which were sent by a friend for treatment, as he was "a master of dogs".

SPCA's counsel Edmund Bon however argued that, if Lau claimed to be a master of dogs he should have known the laws involved and acted accordingly.

Tuesday's appeal made by the SPCA via Deputy Public Prosecutor Kamarulzaman Abdul Jalil asked for a harsher sentence under the Animal Ordinance 1953, which carries a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment or a RM200 fine or both.

Justice Abdull Hamid said the dogs do not seem to be reared under suitable conditions judging from pictures submitted to the court.

"These are beautiful pedigree dogs that should be properly kept and cared for," he said adding that it was shocking to see the dogs in that condition.

Abdull Hamid said he was however not inclined towards questioning the magistrate's decision to impose the RM200 fine, as the punishment was in accordance with Section 44 of the Animal Ordinance 1953.

He said the RM200 fine was adequate and did not impose a harsher penalty.

Meanwhile, Abdull Hamid had to clear up a confusion over the magistrate's decison. In her written judgment, Nurulizwan had left it to the DPP to decide on what to do with the dogs but made no mention of returning them to the owner.

At the same time, in her oral judgment, she had apparently said the dogs will go back to the owner.

Based on the written judgment, Abdull Hamid ordered the dogs to be sent to the veterinary services department for treatment and rehabilitation for one month, before being handed to the SPCA.