18 by his parents (both of whom appear to be low-functioning individuals), his community and society generally: one that is not entirely uncommon in this country. [26] On the other hand, the offence itself is particularly heinous. The deceased, a defenceless elderly lady, was murdered in the sanctity of her home by the appellant who entered under some false pretext in order to perpetrate a robbery. The trial court, as also the court a quo, held that the appellant’s motive in killing the deceased was to avoid detection, as he was known to her. In that conclusion neither can be faulted. These are all strongly aggravating factors. To his credit, in pleading guilty the appellant expressed contrition and remorse. Against the enormity of the crime and the public interest in an appropriately severe punishment, must be weighed the personal circumstances of the appellant that are strongly mitigating. Given the appellant’s relative youthfulness rehabilitation remains a real prospect even after a fairly long period of imprisonment. In my view, taking all this into account, and not losing from sight that the legislature has ordained that the ordinarily appropriate sentence for murder is life imprisonment, a term of 18 years’ imprisonment is appropriate. [27] In the result the appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent that: