HKSAR v. Ika Wilantika

HCCC 446/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 446 OF 2025

______________

______________

_________________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_________________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty in the Magistracy to one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs[1] and was committed, on 29^th December 2025, to the Court of First Instance for sentence. The defendant confirmed her plea and admission to the Summary of Facts before me, and her conviction was duly recorded.

2.Particulars of the charge are that the defendant, on 14^th March 2024, at Room 5, Flat 7, 2^nd Floor, Hai Phong Mansion, Nos. 53-55 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, unlawfully trafficked in dangerous drugs, namely 1,128.83 grammes of a crystalline solid containing 1,108.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride and 2.67 grammes of a solid containing 1.74 grammes of 3,4 methylenedioxymethamphetamine (commonly known as “MDMA”).

FACTS

3.The facts of the case that the defendant has admitted can be summarized as follows for the present purpose.

4.On 14 March 2024, a team of police officers conducted an anti-narcotics operation at the above location and kept the said premises under observations.  At 9 pm, the Defendant was seen coming out of the said Room 5, she was intercepted and a search warrant was executed at the said location.

5.Upon search of the premises, the police found a brown paper bag on the floor near the bed, which contained: - 

A paper box containing: -

(1) nine transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected "ICE" (exhibits 1-9);

(2) six transparent resealable plastic bags containing suspected "MDMA" (exhibits 12-13);

(3) one transparent resealable plastic bag containing 13 pink tablets now confirmed not to be dangerous drugs;

And a plastic box containing: -

(4) an electronic scale;

(5) a metal spoon;

(6) stacks of empty transparent resealable plastic bags.

6.The police also found two mobile phones (with three SIM cards) on the bed.  Cash of HK$500 was found on the Defendant upon search.

7.The narcotic content of the above drugs was subsequently confirmed by the Government Chemist.  Exhibits 1-9 contained a total of 1,128.83 grammes of a crystalline solid containing a total of 1,108.2 grammes of methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as “ICE”) and Exhibits 12-13 contained a total 2.67 grammes of a solid containing 1.74 grammes of MDMA.  The total estimated market value of the dangerous drugs in question is about HK$609,579.

8.The defendant was arrested at the scene.  She was later cautioned forthe offence of Trafficking in dangerous drugs in the presence of an Indonesian interpreter.  Under caution, she said that she knew that Exhibits 1-9 and 12-13 contained dangerous drugs but claimed that they belonged to her boyfriend "Joel".

9.In her subsequent video-recorded interview, the Defendant provided further details regarding her relationship with “Joel” and how she came toknow that Exhibits 1-9 and 12-13 were dangerous drugs.  In particular, the Defendant stated that: -

(1) She met “Joel” around two years before, and they started to live together in the said premises about three months before and “Joel’’ rented the premises.

(2) “Joel” would go to the said premises three or four times a week and usually would stay for about two to three hours.

(3) The premises could be accessed by a password lock and only “Joel” and the Defendant knew the password.

(4) The two mobile phones found belonged to the Defendant, one was used by her to contact her family and friends, the other was used to contact “Joel”.

(5) She did not have any employment and “Joel” supported her living.

(6) She was told on 14 March 2024 by “Joel” that Exhibits 1-9 and 12-13 were dangerous drugs. And she knew they were dangerous drugs because she had seen “Joel” taking drugs in the past.

10.By her admission to the Summary of Facts, the defendant had accepted that, at all material times, she unlawfully trafficked all thedangerous drugs seized.  This is also confirmed at para.6 of the Defence written mitigation.

PREVIOUS CONVICTION

11.The defendant has one previous conviction in 2021, which is unrelated to drugs.

DEFENDANT’S BACKGROUND AND MITIGATION

12.The Defendant was born in Indonesia and is Indonesia national.  She is now 30 years old.  She completed her high school education in Indonesia.

13.It is stated in the Defence mitigation submissions that in October 2020, the Defendant arrived in Hong Kong and took up employment as a foreign domestic helper. Her employment was terminated in January 2021, when she was arrested and subsequently remanded in jail custody for the offence of “concealing birth of child". Upon completion of her sentence, she became a non-refoulementclaimant / Form 8holder.

14.The Defendant's parents and her 10-year-old son reside in Indonesia.  In around2022, the Defendant separated from her husband.  Thereafter she started her relationship with “Joel”.

15.Mr. Kelvin Lai, counsel for the defendant, informed the court that the defendant is remorseful and she was lured into committing the present offence because of financial incentives.  She deeply regrets her misguided actions and pleads for leniency. In this regard, Mr. Lai has helpfully provided the court with detailed written mitigation submissions.  He also emphasized the fact that the Defendant was cooperative and willing to assist the authorities after her arrest.

16.The materials attached to the written mitigation include a handwritten letter from the Defendant, two certificates of completion in English language skills and a bible studies course.  They lend support to Mr. Lai’s submission that the defendant is deeply remorseful for her offence and is now keen to reform herself.

17.Mr. Lai submits that the defendant should be regarded as a mere “courier”, but fairly accepts the fact that she was a non-refoulementclaimant / Form 8holder is an aggravating factor in this case.  The defendant does not rely on partial consumption in her mitigation.

18.In a supplemental skeleton submission, Mr. Lai further informed the Court that the Defendant had participated in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign by agreeing for her story to be used as part of the campaign, which is supported by a letter from Father Wotherspoon to the Court dated 31 May 2026 and a letter from the Consulate General of Indonesia in Hong Kong to the NGO Voice for Prisoners (run by Father Wotherspoon) dated 16 March 2026.  Mr. Lai invited the Court to consider a further reduction for this factor.

SENTENCING

19.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

20.The 6-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

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

22.The sentencing guidelines as updated in the case of HKSAR v Huang Ruifang (No.3)[4] for “ICE” are applied.   For 600 – 1,500 grammes, the applicable band is “18 to 20 years”. 

23.The sentencing guidelines as stated in the case of Secretary for Justice v Hii Siew Cheng[5] for “MDMA” (or ecstasy) are applied.  For over 1 gramme to up to 10 grammes of MDMA, the applicable band is “2 to 4 years” imprisonment.  I note that these guidelines may be subjected to further changes in light the recent case of HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung [2025] HKCA 733 in which Macrae VP granted leave to appeal against sentence for trafficking in 6.8 kilogrammes of Ketamine with a view to reconsidering the guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng.  The Court noted that: -

“[12] … the Ketamine guidelines in Hii Siew Cheng are now 17 years old and only cater, in numerical terms, for amounts up to 1 kilogramme of narcotic and above. Beyond that, there are individual authorities dealing with very large quantities of Ketamine, which, while useful, are not intended to be methodical, structured guidelines. Given that there are now modern, comprehensive guidelines for all quantities of Heroin, Cocaine and “Ice”, as well as Cannabis, the time may well have come for the Court to reconsider the guidelines for Ketamine.” (Paragraph 12 of the Judgment)

24.However, due to the small quantity of MDMA involved in this case and my analysis below in which I accept Mr. Lai’s submission that this small quantity of MDMA can be disregarded for the purpose of sentencing, the potential changes in the guidelines would not affect the overall sentence in this case.  As the Court of Appeal stated in HKSAR v Lau Fun [2026] HKCA 402 at §33, the decision of HKSAR v Choi Tsz Fung will re-examine the guidelines relating to “large quantities” of ketamine, which is not the situation of the present case.

Step 2: The defendant’s role and culpability

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

26.In light of the evidence adduced and the facts admitted, in particular the circumstances in which the defendant came to have access to the premises through “Joel”, I am persuade by Mr. Lai’s submission that the role played by the defendant was a mere courier or storekeeper.

Step 3: The relevant band within the guidelines

27.In determining the proper overall starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principle of trafficking in more than one type of drugs.  I shall adopt the “combined approach”: see HKSAR v Cheung Wai Man[6]. 

28.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[7] and HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[8]). 

29.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.”

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

31.On a purely arithmetical application of the guideline bands:

(1) 1,108.2g of “ICE” would lead to a notional starting point of 19 years and 1 months’ imprisonment.

(2) 1.74g of “MDMA” would lead to 2 years and 2 months imprisonment.

32.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.  As the total amount of “ICE” in this case represents about 99.8% of the total drugs, it was the more or most serious drug in terms of potency.  Therefore, I will use the “ICE” as the base drug to calculate the starting point.

33.In determining the upward adjustment for the remaining 1.74g of MDMA, I examined the overall starting point by checking it against the ration test as stated above.

34.According to the calculations done by the Court (as helpfully confirmed by the defence) the ratio test yielded a result of 19 years and 1 month imprisonment.  But the results are based on pure arithmetical calculation.

35.In any event, I accept Mr. Lai’s submission that the quantity of MDMA in this case can be regarded as insignificant in the overall sentence. Therefore I shall disregard the small quantity of MDMA for the purpose of sentence.

36.In determining the appropriate overall starting point, I also took into consideration the role and the culpability of the defendant.  Having accepted the role of the defendant to be a mere courier, I shall adopt an overall 19 years 1 month as the “notional sentence after trial” as a starting point at this step.

Step 4: Aggravating factors

(1) Form 8 recognizance holder

37.As fairly accepted by Mr. Lai, the Defendant was a Form 8 recognizance holder when she committed the present offence.  This is an aggravating factor as stated by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] 6 HKC 19.  Although it was noted in the case that no guidelines in respect of enhancements of sentence in respect of Form 8 recognizance holders for trafficking in dangerous drugs cases were issued and the matter is best left to the discretion of the sentencing judges, nonetheless the Court made clear that: -

“17. … [The Court] would not expect an enhancement for this factor to be less than 6 months’ imprisonment for a serious offence of trafficking in dangerous drugs in any case before the District or High Court. If the courts do not mark in a meaningful way the significance of a defendant’s betrayal of the trust placed in him by the people of Hong Kong, and the impact of that betrayal on the lives of its citizens and the reputation of this city, then Hong Kong risks becoming a magnet for foreign drug traffickers in the guise of non-refoulement applicants. Furthermore, Form 8 recognizance holders, whose non-refoulement applications may take several years to deal with, must be firmly discouraged from becoming involved in serious crimes, whilst their applications are being processed.”

38.In Ali Saif (above),the defendant’s 9 years 9 months starting point was enhanced by 12 months for this factor, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

39.In Dramane Mouhamed Saiti (unrep, CACC 191/2016, 14 June 2018), the Court of Appeal commented that the applicant, again a Form 8 recognizance holder, who had trafficked in 440 grammes of cocaine narcotic, could have had his starting point for sentence enhanced by as much as 18 months’ imprisonment instead of the 6 months’ enhancement by the trial judge.

40.In HKSAR v Mahabul Alam Khan (unrep, CACC 116/2016, 8 September 2017), the Court of Appeal considered that the starting point for sentence in respect of a Form 8 recognizance holder, who had trafficked in 238.57 grammes of cocaine narcotic, should have been enhanced by 15 months’ imprisonment from the starting point of 12 years 7 months’ imprisonment. 

41.In HKSAR v Shah Syed Arif [2016] 4 HKLRD 664, the trafficking offence concerned 55.88 grammes of cocaine narcotic valued at just over $145,000.  The Court of Appeal considered that an enhancement of 1 years 10 months from the starting point of 8 years and 2 months for this factor to be excessive, and concluded that an enhancement of 1 year for this factor to be appropriate in all the circumstance of that case.

42.In HKSAR v Islam SM Majharul [2020] 3 HKLRD 146, which involved the trafficking of 51.7g of cocaine and 479.26g of “ecstasy”, the Court of Appeal enhanced the12 years starting point by 1 year for this factor: see §27(5) of the Judgment.

43.Taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, I shall enhance the sentence by 12 months for this aggravating factor.

(2) two different types of dangerous drugs

44.This case involves the trafficking in two different types of dangerous drugs.  In the case of HKSAR v Chan Yuk Leong[9], 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.  However, due to the relatively small amount of MDMA seized in this case, I will not enhance the starting point on account of the presence of the two types of drugs.

(3) previous convictions

45.The defendant has one previous conviction from 2021, it is unrelated to drugs.  I shall not treat it as an aggravating factor.  There are no other aggravating factors that would warrant further enhancement.

46.The above analysis results in a sentence of 20 years 1 month’ imprisonment at this step.

Step 5: Mitigating factors

47.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 from 20 years 1 month’ imprisonment to 13 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. 

48.As for the Defendant’s participation in Father Wotherspoon’s campaign.  I found her participation to be very limited.  As stated in Father Wotherspoon’s own letter to the Court, the Defendant agreed to allowing her story to be made public for local and internet use, which allowed him to put a YouTube video about the Defendant’s case online (the video itself is 2mins long).  In addition, it is said that the Defendant’s story was shared at a 45 mins briefing session with about 200 attendees, organized by the Indonesian Consulate for Indonesian foreign domestic helpers, which is supported by the Indonesian Consulate letter to Father Wotherspoon.

49.In HKSAR v Cherop Caroline [2021] 3 HKLRD 904, the Court of Appeal reminded the sentencing courts that: -

“39. … it is vitally important that judges, at both trial and appellate level, treat submissions that a defendant / appellant has contributed to Father Wotherspoon's campaign with realism, perspective and common sense and with a firm grasp of sentencingpractice, procedure and principle…”

50.In HKSAR v Cedeno Mejias Angel Rafael [2026] HKCA 127, the Court of Appeal noted that the appellant therein, together with his wife and mother have all been involved in the anti-drug trafficking campaign of Father Wotherspoon in Venezuela.  The Court gave a deduction of 2 months (rather than 3 months given by the sentencing judge) for this factor as the Court saw nothing exceptional to warrant a 3-month deduction for this factor in that case.

51.In the present case, given the fact that the Defendant’s case did concern a former Indonesian domestic helper and is used at the Indonesian Consulate as a sound reminder to others not to commit this serious crime.  I am persuaded by Mr. Lai and am prepared to give a token discount of 1 month reduction for this factor.

52.The resulting sentence is thus 13 years 3 months’ imprisonment.

Step 6: Totality

53.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

54.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for 13 years 3 months.

Miss Clara Ma, SPP of Department of Justice, for the HKSAR

Mr. Lai Kin Wah Kelvin instructed by C. F. Lee & Co., assigned by DLA, for the Defendant