HKSAR v. MIRANIA ANDANI

HCCC 13/2026

[2026] HKCFI 3789

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 13 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to two counts of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] and was committed, on 8 January 2026, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed her plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and her convictions was duly recorded.

2.  Particulars of Charge 1 are that the defendant, on 24^th July 2024, on Ground Floor, Nos. 5-SA Humphreys Avenue, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong, unlawfully trafficked in a dangerous drug, namely, 10.5 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.

3.  Particulars of Charge 2 are that on the 24^th July 2024, at Room 7, 5^th Floor, Nos. 5-5A Humphreys A venue, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in Hong Kong (hereinafter “the Unit”), unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely, 21.96 grammes of cannabis in herbal form, 9.44 grammes of a solid containing 7.13 grammes of cocaine, 7.44 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.83 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (i.e. “ICE”), 2.34 grammes of a solid containing 1.90 grammes of ketamine and 6.38 grammes of a solid containing 4.9 grammes of 3,4-methlenedioxymethamphetamine (i.e. “MDMA or ecstasy”).

FACTS

4.  The facts admitted can be summarized as follows.

5.  Around 2 p.m. on 24 July 2024, plainclothes police officers mounted an anti-narcotic operation on 5^th Floor of the above stated location.  At the time the Defendant walked out of the Unit, and was interpreted by the Police when she reached the ground floor.  The defendant was then search and two bunch of keys were found.   The police then escorted the Defendant back to the Unit and executed a search warrant.  The Unit was accessible using one of the keys found on the defendant.  Upon entry into the Unit, there was a male present.

6.  The Defendant was searched, a piece of tissues paper wrapping a transparent resealable plastic bag, which contained 2 plastic bags containing a total of 10.5 grammes of cannabis in herbal form was found inside her brassiere.  This is the subject of Charge 1.  The Defendant was arrested at 2:15pm and under caution, she said “I consume it myself”.  Two mobile phones (one “Samsung” phone and one “Honor” phone)  and cash in the sum of HK$953.2 were also found on the Defendant.

7.  The Unit was searched, and the following were found:

(1)  One black plastic bag (Exhibit 4)  containing:

(a)  A resealable plastic bag (Exhibit 5);

(b)  Three plastic bags, each containing one plastic bag, containing a total of 7.84 grammes of cannabis in herbal form (Exhibit 6);

(c)  a bunch of transparent resealable plastic bags (Exhibit 7);

(2)  A transparent plastic bag (Exhibit 8);

(3)  A piece of plastic wrap (Exhibit 9)  containing:

(a)  A piece of tissue paper (Exhibit 10);

(b)  One plastic bag containing 4.65 grammes of cannabis in herbal form (Exhibit 11);

(4)  Two plastic bags containing a total of 8.86 grammes of cannabis in herbal form (Exhibit 12);

(5)  One transparent resealable plastic (Exhibit 13)  containing one plastic bag containing 0.61 grammes of cannabis in herbal form (Exhibit 14);

(6)  A bunch of transparent resealable plastic bags (Exhibit 15);

(7)  A plastic box (Exhibit 16)  containing:

(a)  Eleven plastic bags containing a total of 6.87 grammes of a solid containing 5.44 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 17);

(b)  Four plastic bags containing. a total of 2 .17 grammes of a solid containing 1.38 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 17);

(c)  One plastic bag containing 0.40 grammes of a solid containing 0.31 grammes of cocaine (Exhibit 17);

(d)  One electronic scale (Exhibit 18);

(8)  One plastic box (Exhibit 19);

(9)  One piece of tissue paper (Exhibit 20)  containing five plastic bags containing a total of 3.62 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 3.62 grammes of ICE (Exhibit 21);

(10)  One transparent resealable plastic bag (Exhibit 22)  containing 3 plastic bags containing a total of 2.34 grammes of a solid containing 1.90 grammes of ketamine (Exhibit 23);

(11)  One transparent resealable plastic bag (Exhibit 24)  containing:

(a)  Five plastic bags containing a total of 3.15 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 2.54 grammes of “ICE” (Exhibit 25);

(b)  Six plastic bags containing a total of 4.24 grammes of a solid containing 3.27 grammes of MDMA (Exhibit 25);

(12)  Three plastic bags containing a total of 2.14 grammes of a solid containing 1.63 grammes of MDMA (Exhibit 26);

(13)  One plastic bag containing 0.67 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 0.67 grammes of “ICE” (Exhibit 27);

(14)  A transparent resealable plastic bag (Exhibit 28)  containing:

(a)  A piece of tissue paper (Exhibit 29);

(b)  Three pieces of blotting paper (in form of 11 squares)  containing traces of lysergide (LSD)  (Exhibit 30); and

(15)  One transparent resealable plastic bag containing 1 bunch of transparent resealable plastic bags (Exhibit 31).

8.  In summary, a total of 21.96 grammes of cannabis in herbal form; 9.44 grammes of a solid containing 7.13 grammes of cocaine; 7.44 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 6.83 grammes of “ICE”; 2.34 grammes of a solid containing 1.90 grammes of ketamine and 6.38 grammes of a solid containing 4.9 grammes of MDMA were found and seized in the Unit.  This is the subject of Charge 2.  The Defendant was then arrested and cautioned at 2:41pm, she said under caution “I consume them myself also.”

9.  The examination of the Samsung phone found on the Defendant revealed WhatsApp messages between the defendant and a “Rabi Rabi” between 23 July 2024 and 24 July 2024, which included a photo sent by the defendant to “Rabi Rabi” depicting a pack of drugs (in the form of crystalline solids)  placed on an electronic scale, showing that the defendant was delivering drugs on the instructions of “Rabi Rabi”.

10.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview of the Defendant between 25-26 July 2024, she admitted to the following matters: -

(1)  She was born in Indonesia and attained education up to junior high school level;

(2)  She worked as a domestic helper in Hong Kong earning about HK$4,700 a month since 2019;

(3)  When she was intercepted by the police, she was on her way to the park outside to smoke the drugs found in her brassier (i.e. the drugs the subject of Charge 1). Those drugs were given to her by someone else for her own consumption and were sufficient for her consumption for a long time;

(4)  the Unit was rented by her boyfriend (i.e. the male found in the Unit)  and she had been living there for about three weeks. Only she and the other male had the keys to the Unit;

(5)  Exhibit 6 (the cannabis in herbal form)  found in the Unit was given to her by someone else for her own consumption and some of the plastic bags found there were for containing the drugs when she wanted to consume them;

(6)  she had used an electronic scale to weigh her drugs in the Unit;

(7)  the "Samsung" mobile phone, the brassiere, the keys of the Unit and the cash in the sum of HKD$953.2 seized all belong to her;

(8)  she admitted that she had WhatsApp exchanges with a person named as “Rabi Rabi” as shown in the screen captures taken from her "Samsung" mobile phone.

11.  In July 2024, the estimated street value of all the dangerous drugs seized in the present case was between HK$18,738 and HK$21,542, with the breakdown as follows:

(1)  cannabis in herbal form: HK$6,200

(2)  cocaine (in powder form): HK$7,089

(3)  cocaine (in crack form): HK$9,893

(4)  “ICE”: HK$3,735

(5)  ketamine: HK$1,133

(6)  MDMA: HK$581

12.  By her admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant admits and accepts that she was knowingly in possession of all the dangerous drugs seized in this case for the purpose of unlawful trafficking.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

13.  The defendant is of clear record in Hong Kong.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

14.  Ms Elizabeth Herbert, counsel for the Defendant, provided the Court with helpful and detailed written submissions for mitigation. 

15.  In summary, the defendant is an Indonesian national born on 29 June 1992. She is now nearly 34 years old and received her education in Indonesia up to secondary form 3.

16.  She first came to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper in 2014.  She completed one contract and returned to Indonesia.  She then returned to Hong Kong in 2018 and worked for various employers.  She was still working as a domestic helper at the time of the present offences and earning around HK$4,700 per month at the time.

17.  She is the main breadwinner of her family and used to send the bulk of her salary home to her family. 

18.  Her mother is in Indonesia, and is a full-time carer of the defendant’s nine-year-old son.  They both reside with the defendant’s father who is now in hospital with various health complications, including severe paralysis.  He is unlikely to ever be able to return home as he requires full-time care.

19.  The Defendant is now divorced from her husband and he does not provide any support to their child.

20.  The whole family therefore relies on the defendant and her income to support them. It was at this time when the Defendant was struggling to cope with paying the household expenses for the family and the mounting healthcare costs of her father that led to the commission of the offences.

21.  The defendant now deeply regrets her actions as her family is now placed in a much worse situation than before as she is unable to send any money to them.  She is extremely worried, particularly for the welfare of her son.  As a direct result of the case, the defendant has lost her employment and she is unlikely to be able to work in Hong Kong as a domestic helper again.

22.  Miss Herbert informed the court that the defendant is remorseful for the offences and pleads for leniency. Her remorse is shown by her timely guilty plea.

23.  It was expressly stated that partial consumption is relied on as mitigation for Charge 1 – more specifically one of the two bags of cannabis found on the Defendant, representing half of the amount (approx. 5 grammes)  subject of the charge was for self-consumption.  No evidence is adduced to support this assertion except for the fact that the defendant made the same assertion both at the scene of her arrest and at her subsequent interview.  But it was fairly accepted by Miss Herbert that in reality, even if this limited self-consumption is made out, it will make very little difference to the overall sentence as Charge 2 will result in a substantially higher sentence. 

SENTENCING

24.  The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment for trafficking in dangerous drugs is life imprisonment and a fine of $5 million.

APPLYING HERRY JANE YUSUPH

25.  The six-step sentencing approach introduced by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph[2], as read in conjunction with HKSAR v Lee Ming Ho[3], are applied as follows.

Step 1: The applicable guideline tariff band

26.  Step one is to identify the relevant guideline band applicable to the quantity of the dangerous drugs in question.

27.  For Charge 1, the sentencing guidelines for herbal cannabis as stated in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 are applied.  For 10.5 grammes it will fall under the lowest band (under 2,000g – up to 16 months’ imprisonment).

28.  For Charge 2, it concerns 4 types of dangerous drugs:-

(1)  For the 21.96 grammes of cannabis in herbal form,again the sentencing guidelines for herbal cannabis as stated in HKSAR v Nguyen Thang Loi [2023] 1 HKLRD 1329 are applied and it would fall under the lowest band of “under 2,000 grammes with up to 16 months’ imprisonment”;

(2)  For the 7.13 grammes of cocaine, the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for cocaine are applied and it would fall under the lowest band of “up to 10 grammes with 2 to 5 years”;

(3)  For the 6.83 grammes of “ICE” the sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[2025] 2 HKLRD 138 for “ICE” are applied and it would fall at under the lowest band of “up to 10 grammes with 3 to 7 years”;

(4)  For the 1.90 grammes of ketamine and the 4.9 grammes of MDMA (total 6.80 grammes), the sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng [2009] 1 HKLRD 1 are applied and they would fall under the band of “over 1 gramme to 10 grammes with 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment”.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

29.  The second step is to assess the role and culpability of the defendant.  

30.  As fairly accepted by Ms Herbert, the agreed facts show that the Defendant had the Charge 2 drugs stored in her flat.  She was taking instructions from the individual “Rabi Rabi” in relation to the delivery of drugs.  Therefore, her role and culpability are slightly above that of a mere courier / storekeeper.  But I do accept that she was not the mastermind nor was she particularly high up in the chain as she was taking instruction from another.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

31.  In determining the proper overall starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle of trafficking in more than one type of drugs.

32.  There were three means of cross-checking the appropriateness of the overall starting point in the case of a trafficking involving different types of dangerous drugs.  The absurdity test, conversion test and the ratio test (see the cases of HKSAR v Yip Wai Yin & Anor[4] and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[5]). 

33.  However, in the recent case of HKSAR v Yau Kai Fung [2026] HKCA 885 (handed down on 28 May 2026), the Court of Appeal provided new guidance on the use of these cross-checking tests when sentencing offenders involving a cocktail or combination of drugs.  Zervos JA (giving judgment of the Court)  explained, inter alia, that the absurdity test provides for a calculation indicating the upper limit of the sentence (§36)  and the conversion test is computationally complex and the outcomes may vary depending on the choice of base drug and the conversion rate used, giving rise to a risk of inconsistency and undue complication(§§37-38).  His Lordship concluded at §42 that: -

“In light of the structured approach set out in Herry Jane Yusuph and the revised sentencing guidelines in Huang Ruifang (No. 3), the absurdity and conversion tests no longer serve any useful or principled purpose as cross checks; the ratio test, while conceptually straightforward and consistent with the differentiated guidelines for hard and soft drugs, is to be used only in that secondary role.”

34.  Therefore, I shall only use the ratio test for cross-checking in this case.

35.  On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands.

36.  For Charge 1: would lead to less than 1 month’s imprisonment.

37.  For Charge 2,

(1)  21.96 grammes of cannabis in herbal form would lead to less than 1 month’s imprisonment;

(2)  7.13 grammes of cocaine would lead to around 4 years and 1 month’s imprisonment;

(3)  6.83 grammes of “ICE” would lead to around 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment;

(4)  1.90 grammes of ketamine and 4.9 grammes of MDMA (total of 6.8 grammes)would lead to around 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment

38.  To achieve a reasonable and realistic sentence, I will adopt the combined approach which involve an upward adjustment from the starting point of the base drug: see HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man [2019] 1 HKLRD 817 and HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146 §27.  I shall then cross-check whether the starting point to be adopted is fair and appropriate by using the ratio test as stated above.

39.  Although I note that ‘Ice’ was the more potent drug in terms of harm, and cannabis represented the highest quantity in Charge 2.  The cocaine quantity in Charge 2 represented the highest proportion of the more potent drugs in comparison to the “ICE” and Ketamine/MDMA quantities.  Given that large portion and its potency is not significantly less than that of ‘ICE (see HKSAR v Wan Lau Mei [2014] HKEC 528) I will use cocaine as the base drug to calculate the starting point.

40.  Using cocaine as the base drug, the starting point for 7.13 grammes of cocaine is 4 years and 1 month’s imprisonment. I now have to decide what upward adjustment I should make for the ‘Ice’ and Ketamine/MDMA, both of which were of similar quantity.  As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(3), to determine by how much this starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s)  is ultimately an exercise of sentencing discretion and should be done by:

(i)  considering the quantity of the other drugs and the relevant sentence according to that drug’s sentencing guidelines and by reference to the starting point adopted for the base drug. Here there is 6.83 grammes of “ICE” which corresponds to around 5 years and 8 months’ imprisonment; and 6.8 grammes in total of ketamine and MDMA, which correspond to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment. For the 21.96 grammes of cannabis which correspond only to less than 1 month’s imprisonment.

(ii)  conducting an overall comparison of the sentencing guidelines of the two drugs and their related ranges of sentence;

(iii)  examining the results of the ratio test, which yielded a result of 3 years and 9 months.

(iv)  taking all these matters into account to calculate a reasonable and realistic increase to the starting point. I would increase the starting point of 4 years and 1 month’s imprisonment by 2 years and 5 months’ imprisonment, resulting in 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2.

41.  In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I will also need to take into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant, being slightly more culpable than a mere courier, I shall therefore apply a three-month enhancement and adopt an overall starting point of 6 years and 9 months’ imprisonment at this step for Charge 2.

42.  For Charge 1, although the quantity of cannabis involved was small.  But I do bear in mind para 99 Nguyen Thang Loi where the Court of Appeal repeated the observations made by the Court of Appeal of South Australia in R v Yavuz and Others [2018] 130 SASR 231 that: -

“… trafficking in small quantities of the drug is widespread among a large population of generally law abiding people. There are significant social costs in stigmatising these individuals as drug traffickers. The need to minimise the harms resulting from enforcement of prohibitions against trafficking is particularly compelling when minor criminality involving cannabis is in question.

Though realistic distinctions between major and minor dealers are essential, quantitative measures of guilt provide a very rough guide indeed to the level of criminality of cannabis dealers. …”

43.  Therefore, trafficking in cannabis, even in a small quantity, is a crime that is nevertheless serious.

44.  For Charge 1, I shall adopt a starting point of 3 months’ imprisonment having regard to the Defendant’s role and culpability.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

Two different types of dangerous drugs

45.  Charge 2 involved the trafficking in more than two different types of dangerous drugs. 

46.  In the case of HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[6], the Court of Appeal stated the fact that the seizure of two or more types of dangerous drugs at the same time, even though separately packed and not in a prepared mixture, may lead to two possible aggravating features.  One being the ability of the trafficker to cater to a wider market, the other being the effect on users of combinations of dangerous drugs. 

47.  As explained in Islam SM Majharul §27(4), after the determination of how much the starting point should be increased to allow for the quantity of the other drug(s).  The Court has to determine the level of enhancement to the starting point for the aggravating factor that the trafficking involved two or more serious dangerous drugs.  I would enhance the starting point by 3 months on account of this factor.

48.  The above analysis results in: -

(1)  Charge 1: 3 months’ imprisonment.

(2)  Charge 2: 7 years’ imprisonment.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

49.  Given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence, the only strong mitigating factor in the defendant’s case is her guilty plea which was entered at the earliest opportunity.  Because of that, she is entitled to a full one-third discount.  That brings the sentence down:-

(1)  For Charge 1: to 2 months’ imprisonment.

(2)  For Charge 2: to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

50.  For Charge 1, the Defence further avers that half of the cannabis (around 5 grammes)  was for self-consumption and therefore invites the Court to reduce the sentence on that premises. 

51.  As accepted by Miss Herbert, this matter would have no realistic effect on the overall sentence even if accepted by the Court.  However, as the issue is raised the Court is obliged to deal with it.

52.  I reject the bare assertion that half of the cannabis under Charge 1 was for self-consumption.

53.  As stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Wong Suet Hau [2002] 1 HKLRD 69, given the dangers of the abuse of this avenue of mitigation, the judge should look with the greatest care at all the surrounding circumstances in order to decide whether or not to accept the contention.  This is particularly so when bare assertions are made with no supporting evidence.

54.  A Court will usually be able to determine the issue from the following factors without a Newton hearing and in this case, Miss Herbert has fairly accepted that no Newton hearing is required.:-

(a)  the quantity of drugs and, if known, their value;

(b)  the general circumstances, including how the drugs are wrapped, and how many wraps or packets are found;

(c)  where the drugs have been discovered, whether at a residential address owned or rented in the trafficker's own name or in someone else's name, or whether they were being carried in a public place;

(d)  the presence of paraphernalia associated with the drugs, including, on the one hand, items used for packaging, weighing and diluting drugs and, on the other, items which are used for the consumption of drugs;

(e)  whether the defendant is an addict, or is otherwise accepted to have been a habitual user of the drug in question;

(f)  the explanation given by the defendant following arrest;

(g)  the defendant's general means and his ability to pay for his drugs, otherwise than by trafficking in them; and

(h)  the defendant's criminal record, if any, in relation to previous drug offences.

55.  Applying these factors to Charge 1, the quantity of drugs are small, comprising two bags the total of which was 10.5 grammes of cannabis in herbal form.  Only one of the two bags are alleged to be for self-consumption.  However, I note that upon arrest, the defendant had claimed “self-consumption” in relation to all the drugs found when they were found at the scene, including those in relation to Charge 2, which is clearly untrue.

56.  The two bags for Charge 1 were both wrapped, and both were kept in her brassiere and carried to a public place.  I do not accept that the defendant was intending to smoke one of the two packs in the park.  This would have drawn more suspicion on herself than smoking it in private (including at the Unit).

57.  There is also no evidence to show the defendant is an addict, or is otherwise accepted to have been a habitual user of the drug in question.

58.  The defendant was a domestic helper at the material time, but I assume she also earned an income from drug trafficking.  But she has no criminal record in relation to previous drug offences.

59.  In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that “self-consumption” is made out in relation to Charge 1.

Step 6: Totality

60.  Given the factual circumstances of the case and totality of sentence, I order that the sentence for Charge 1 be served concurrently with the sentence for Charge 2.

61.  In my judgment, this is a fair, just and balanced sentence in all the circumstances of the offence and offender for the reasons stated above.

FINAL SENTENCE

62.  Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years and 8 months.