HKSAR v. Guo Ailing

HCCC 344/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 344 OF 2025

-----------------

-----------------

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant has pleaded guilty before me to one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, namely 37.92 grammes of a solid containing 17.18 grammes of methamphetamine.

This case bears a chequered history because she had earlier pleaded guilty in the lower court to the original charge, which was the 1st charge of possession of dangerous drugs and the 2nd charge of trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Upon my reading of the papers, I discovered that the Summary of Facts which were admitted did not support the charge of possession of dangerous drugs. And so the Department of Justice was informed about my concern and I am grateful, the court is grateful to Ms Mok for taking on this task and therefore sorting out this debacle.

This should not happen again and the lower court counsel who is not Ms Mok, I have to clarify, should be told in no uncertain terms that if the facts do not support a certain charge, that charge should not be laid. Originally the defendant, I see, was arrested for the charge of trafficking. Why was it split into two different charges when there was no evidence to support it?

So Ms Mok has very kindly and efficiently sorted this out and also this court is grateful to the defendant for agreeing to withdraw her original plea to Charge 1, whereupon the prosecution has withdrawn that original Charge 1 and filed a new indictment before me, which is the proper way to do it and I allowed the defendant to withdraw her original plea and to plead again on the new indictment.

So this case is not difficult. It is a simple case in that the defendant was arrested coming out of the premises in Dah Sing Building and nothing was found on her except for two keys, mobile phones, and some money.

She was brought back to the premises and the premises were opened by the keys found on the defendant. And the premises was a subdivided flat which was about 150 square feet and upon a house search, police officers were able to find the drugs which is the subject matter of the charge. They were mainly in a liquid form and which upon drying would contain the solid, the methamphetamine solid that was eventually found by the forensic scientist. There was also a digital scale in the premises.

A total therefore of 37.92 grammes of a solid containing 17.18 grammes of methamphetamine was therefore found on the premises. And upon further investigation, the tenancy agreement showed that the defendant was the tenant of the premises between 8 November 2024 and 7 November 2025 and the landlord of the premises confirmed that the defendant was the tenant on a one-year tenancy at a monthly rent of $4,500.

The estimated street value of the dangerous drugs seized was in the region of $19,643.

The defendant is aged in her late 40s and has a family in Hong Kong. She was originally from the mainland, but she came to Hong Kong, married a Hong Kong person and she has three children who are ages 10, 18 and 20 years old. And because of the family financial circumstances, she started working first as a caretaker and then subsequently in the year 2023, she started work as a masseuse to raise university tuition fees for her eldest daughter who managed to qualify for entry into the university. But because of the work involved, she suffered, I am informed by Ms Tsang, she suffered from aches and pains and she was then introduced to methamphetamine by someone who claimed that this would relieve her of her pain.

And so she then became addicted and this addiction lasted for about a year prior to her arrest and as Ms Tsang pointed out, her urine test upon arrest shows that she has ‘Ice’ in her urine.

The mitigation of Ms Tsang also points out that because of her habit, she then needed to pay for the ‘Ice’ which she bought from this person Ah Wah who introduced her to this drug. And because she could not really afford that, Ah Wah then asked her to store the ‘Ice’ for him and then she will be able to use some of the ‘Ice’ for her own addiction.

Now I am moved by the letter from the defendant’s elder daughter who wrote about her mother’s dedication to the family, about her mother’s character as a loving and kind person and that her mother tried her best to raise money, to raise the fees for her university but unfortunately because of all this happening, she now has to go out to work and cannot go to university.

There is also a young daughter at home and who needs parental care. Her father, the father is a taxi driver and is now the only person being able to support the family.

It is a sad case. However, drug trafficking is a very serious offence. It does not only affect the defendant and her family. When the drugs are allowed to go out into society, it affects many families and drives many families to poverty and eventually to tragic circumstances. And that is why the court has to be very serious about considering a sentence in order to deter others from indulging in this evil trade apart from deterring the defendant.

I hope that what Ms Tsang submitted that she is unlikely to re-offend after this is true and that the defendant will turn over a new leaf.

The defendant has two previous convictions but not related to drugs. So this is her first offence for drug trafficking.

As Ms Tsang has correctly pointed out, the sentencing of methamphetamine has been laid down in the case of Huang Ruifang and the six-step approach by the Court of Appeal in the case of Yusuph. I’m sorry, the case of Huang Ruifang, which is a case submitted by the prosecution.

It is always hard to consider a sentence as each individual is different. But I take into account that in the case of Huang Ruifang in 2025, the Court of Appeal has laid down, suggested a guideline of sentence of between 7 to 11 years’ imprisonment for trafficking in between 10 to 70 grammes of ‘Ice’. Here we have a quantity of 17.18 grammes of methamphetamine, which would merit a starting point sentence of 7½ to 8 years’ imprisonment.

But in this case, because of all that I have said, I will adopt the starting point of 7½ years. And then because of the background of this case, I am giving her the full one-third discount as she had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court. And so it is reduced to one of 60 months’ imprisonment, which is 5 years.

I will further reduce it by 1½ years in light of the fact that part of the drug is for her own consumption and the prosecution does not take issue with that. So reducing it by 18 months will bring the sentence down to 3 years and 6 months. So the defendant will go to prison for 3½ years.