Who Pays for Recovery?

By Christian Pace

There’s been a new story in the Maltese media about the confiscation of around 120 animals by the Animal Welfare team from a private residence in Triq il-Baċir Ġdid, Paola. The reported animals included 7 cats, 17 gerbils, 19 rabbits, 17 hens, and approximately 60 birds of various species. Photos and reports of their condition beggar belief.

My question about the cat is: how much of those 2kg was dirt-matted fur?

My question about the case is: will anyone be held accountable for their care?

That is, who is ultimately going to pay for their recovery care?

Why Talk About Money Now?

I know—if you’re in the moment, it sounds tone deaf to be talking about expenses. But hear me out. Maltese law gives the Animal Welfare Directorate the ability to recover costs from the person responsible, if and when they’re found guilty in court, and if and when they submit receipts.

The department has successfully brought some cases to justice. But what happens to the bill in those cases—and why does it matter?

When Justice Is Silent on Costs

In the cases I’ve reviewed, even when prosecution succeeds, the receipts for the expense of care are never submitted. Examples:

• 2023 Żebbuġ hoarding case: 27 bully breed dogs were confiscated from a residence. No breakdown of veterinary costs was presented in court.

• 2022 Marsa neglect case: A dog was confiscated from a rooftop in poor condition. The final judgment made no mention of recovery costs despite months of rehabilitation.

Why?

FOI Requests and Data Blackouts

I had theories: administrative hurdles, non-collection of data. So I filed a Freedom of Information request to the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Animal Rights. I was working on a data-driven protocol for a new cat TNR project and desperately needed disease statistics to inform those protocols.

All I asked for were:

• Confirmed cases of disease in cats collected by the Animal Welfare ambulance or neutering campaign

• Testing protocols used to determine what data is comparable

That data never came through either.

What I Found

After months of digging, here’s what I’ve found: there are no standardised protocols. Each clinic contracted by the government has wide leeway. Each vet decides what, if anything, needs to be done. That’s not inherently bad—vets are best positioned to assess in the moment.

But there’s little to no recording of:

• Which tests were used

• Why they were chosen

• When they were administered

• Whether retesting was done to account for incubation periods

Quarantine and isolation procedures? Often inadequate or undocumented. And since Animal Welfare Directorate is the client, they should have access to that data. Their absence suggests more than oversight.

Systemic Breach

This total disregard for the role of monitoring communicable disease in fulfilling the department’s obligations to protect animal welfare is systemic negligence. Not just a gap. A breach.

The cat TNR scheme is one example. Not only is the scheme designed to fail (more on that soon), but it also taxes cat welfare unnecessarily. Appointments are distributed randomly across the island, meaning cats from different regions converge in clinics and—more critically—in recovery facilities for 5 to 7 days.

Cats come and go. The scheme forces the very people trying to protect them to do the thing they want to avoid: make them sick.

I can understand to an extent—this is how it’s always been done here, and this is what it looks like when you scale it up. But if we’ve always done it this way and it’s not working, I say we change it. That’s just my evidence-driven mentality. And I say let's also do it in a way that does not tax the people donating their time either. That's just me prioritising social justice too.

Fear of Change?

I have over years qustioned this whenever i had the opportunity but never got an answer anyone was willing to say out loud. So maybe it’s fear of change driving this inefficacy. But then, why not have the bills for prosecution either? Does the data compromise extend to financials too?

Tying this back into the current case

Now is the time when the animal welfare department and treating veterinarians are meant to be documenting the case, recording that data, making sure it is justified, backed up and protected. So this matters right NOW! And in every case investigated from the first step to the last. Evidence matters!

Animal Welfare officials confiscate 120 animals found in a poor state

Animal Welfare silent on what happened to 10 stray dogs found in Żebbuġ

Watch: "Owner did not live with dogs - police investigating case" - TVMnews.mt

27 bully breed dogs rescued from Ħaż-Żebbuġ residence

⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: Public Interest Commentary Under Maltese Law

This publication is intended as a good-faith contribution to public discourse on systemic issues affecting animal welfare oversight in Malta. It is protected under the right to freedom of expression as enshrined in the Constitution of Malta and the Media and Defamation Act (Chapter 579).

All statements of fact are based on publicly available information, official records, Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, and media reports accessible at the time of writing. All questions, interpretations, and conclusions are presented as the author’s personal opinion and are clearly distinguished from factual claims.

This blog does not allege criminal wrongdoing unless such findings have been confirmed by a competent court. Where institutional practices are critiqued, they are addressed in the context of public accountability and systemic reform—not personal accusation.

Any references to individuals, organizations, or government bodies are made in the public interest and with the intent to foster transparency, accountability, and constructive dialogue. The author welcomes factual corrections and clarifications from any party referenced herein.

This publication is not legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult qualified professionals for legal interpretation or action.