VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J directly on the effect of the protection of children’s rights in section 28 of the Constitution on sentencing. [13] I now turn to the issue of whether the matter is res judicata. The DPP submits by way of a “special plea” that the application should be “removed from the roll”, because it has already been decided by this Court and is thus res judicata. The DPP relies on the need for finality in criminal matters and views this to be a rigid bar to leave being granted in this case. Counsel for the DPP submitted that concerns about youthfulness and even childhood should not create any exception. Counsel for the applicant submits that the res judicta principle does not apply, because the previous application was so “ill-advised” that it was a nullity or “bordered on a nullity”.12 [14] The general principle is that a convicted and sentenced person cannot appeal more than once against the same conviction or sentence. Once an application for leave to appeal is dismissed, this is a judicial decision, which is final and determinative, involving the same parties, cause of action and relief sought.13 The fact that an application for leave to appeal or an appeal is without merit, or “ill-advised”, cannot easily make it a nullity and open the way for further appeals, every time on a different ground. 12 The parties dealt only with application CCT 66/08 and not CCT 101/09. 13 Evins v Shield Insurance Co Ltd 1980 (2) SA 814 (AD) at 835F-G; S v Khumalo 2009 (1) SACR 503 (TPD) at 505F-H; and R v Kriel 1939 SA 221 (CPD) at 222. See also Van der Merwe et al (eds) Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act Service 48 (Juta and Co Ltd, Cape Town 2007) at 31–15 to 31–16. 7