VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J and to decide on a proper sentence? Under the present circumstances a referral back to the High Court would not be useful. The offences were committed 15 years ago and the sentence imposed almost 12 years ago. A range of aggravating and mitigating factors was placed before the High Court and dealt with by the Court in its judgment. One of these was the age of the applicant. It is unlikely that new evidence would shed much light on the issue. The DPP has been unable to trace the full record of the criminal proceedings. Evidence gathered on the initiative of this Court is vague, contradictory and inconclusive. The High Court made its findings. It would not be appropriate to refer the matter back mainly to afford the High Court an opportunity, or to expect of the High Court to reconsider, clarify or reformulate its own previous findings. [52] This Court has to consider an appropriate sentence. In doing so, competing interests have to be weighed. On the one hand, there is the Constitution’s high regard for the interests of children and recognition that those under the age of 18 years are indeed children. On the other hand, there is the general principle that a court of appeal does not interfere easily with sentencing by a lower court, as well as the constitutional concern for the safety of all and the need to combat crime. [53] It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the Child Justice Act which was promulgated in 2008 could give guidance in the sentencing, even though it came into operation after the sentencing in this matter and is not applicable to Mr Mpofu. It may be noted that section 77(4) of the Child Justice Act creates a maximum sentence limit 23