- 54 -
offender or a person who had committed an offence of grave nature. We accepted that to be the case.
222. Similar to other defendants, mitigation letters from husband and parents, friends and university professors had been produced. All of them spoke highly of her. They asked for leniency from this Court. In her own handwritten mitigation letter, D27 explained the mental illnesses she had been suffering in the past and accepted full responsibility for her acts. We were of no doubt that the appropriate authority would take that into account when the issue of remission was under consideration in the future.
223. For D27, based on her role in the Scheme, 7 years (84 months) would be adopted as the notional starting point. Given her plea, a full one-third discount would be given. An additional 3 months would be given for her ignorance of the law.
224. The riot case to which D27 pleaded guilty pre-dated the present case. The two cases had no direct relationship to each other and related to two distinct and separate incidents. We had carefully considered the issue of totality and failed to see why a concurrent sentence should be imposed.
225. For the offence D27 stands convicted, she is sentenced to 4 years and 5 months’ (53 months) imprisonment, to be served consecutively to the sentence imposed on her in the riot case.
