VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J of criminal cases and does not wish to be unduly critical. However, the sentencing of any convicted person is a delicate and important issue. This is all the more so when youthfulness is taken into account as a circumstance in the mitigation of punishment. It becomes extremely important when childhood is at issue, directly invoking the guidelines and demands of section 28 of the Constitution. An inadequate and inconclusive investigation into the possibility that a person about to be sentenced was under 18 when the offences were committed, or loose, imprecise or contradictory language to describe a conclusion on this point, could in itself be a misdirection. [46] If the High Court accepted that Mr Mpofu was 20 at the time of sentencing, then did the Court take into account that he was a child when he committed the offences? According to the applicant and the amicus, it did not. The DPP conceded that if childhood were taken into account, the consideration of sentencing might have been different. The DPP’s argument that it did not really matter much to the prosecution and the Court whether he was 20 at the time of sentencing (thus 16 or 17 at the time of the offences) or 20 at the time of the offences is unpersuasive. If this were the attitude of the Court, it would be a clear example of a misdirection. [47] I thus conclude that the High Court misdirected itself. From the references in the judgment it appeared to have accepted that Mr Mpofu was a child at the time he committed the offences, but failed to take it into account when considering what an appropriate sentence would have been. 21