HKSAR v. Mirania Andani
Read the full judgment text of HCCC 13/2026 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 June 2026.
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.
Cites 12 cases
|
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 24th 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 24th July 2024, at Room 7, 5th 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 5th 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:
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: -
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:
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:-
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: -
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,
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:
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: -
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: -
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:-
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.:-
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.
Mr Antony Leung, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR Ms Herbert Elizabeth Anne instructed by Chaudhry Solicitors, assigned by DLA, for the Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment