VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [41] A third possibility is that we are unable to determine with any accuracy what the High Court accepted with regard to Mr Mpofu’s age because of the imprecise language in the judgment to describe the ages of the accused individuals, as indicated earlier. This would leave open the possibility that he was indeed a child and that the sentencing Court disregarded this fact. Was there a misdirection? [42] The inquiry in an appeal against sentence is not whether the sentence was right or wrong, but whether the Court in imposing it exercised its discretion properly and judicially. A misdirection that could result in the setting aside of a sentence on appeal is an error committed by the Court in determining or applying the facts for assessing an appropriate sentence. However, a mere misdirection is not by itself sufficient to entitle a court to interfere with the sentence on appeal. It must be of such a nature, seriousness or degree that it shows that the Court did not exercise its discretion or exercised it improperly or unreasonably.32 [43] Whether a misdirection has occurred in this case depends on the interpretation of the High Court judgment. On the second of the above-mentioned possible interpretations of the High Court judgment, the Court regarded the applicant as a youthful offender and took his youth into account. The Court did not regard him as a child at the time of the commission of the offences and thus never mentioned childhood as a factor, or any of the contents of section 28 of the Constitution. If this is 32 S v Pillay 1977 (4) SA 531 (A) at 535E-F. 19