VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [5] Applications by Mr Mpofu for leave to appeal against his sentence to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal were dismissed on 16 November 2004 and 17 August 2006, respectively. He applied on the ground that the High Court had failed to take into account that he was under age, amongst other things.5 [6] In 2008 he approached this Court with an application for leave to appeal, on the basis that the presiding judge was not impartial and violated his constitutional right to a fair trial. He further argued that the fact that the record of his trial could not be traced infringed his right of access to information. The application for condonation of the late filing of papers and the application for leave were dismissed.6 In 2009 Mr Mpofu again approached this Court on the basis that his right of access to information, his right of appeal and his right to a fair trial were infringed. This application was also dismissed.7 In both cases this Court stated in short reasons that it was “not in the interests of justice” to hear the matter. [7] In the present application,8 he seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. He submits that the High Court did not give due consideration to his age at the time of the 5 In his application to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the applicant contended that the murder and other offences were not premeditated on his part. Further, he was promised that if he acted as a state-witness his sentence would be mitigated. He denied having committed the murder and requested the Court to read the eye-witness testimony again to prove that he was not the one who pulled the trigger on the deceased. Finally, he submitted that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration that he was under age. He stated: “Accused 4 was 20 years old, the judge did not take into consideration that the appellant was under-age when the crime was committed, compare with the ring leader accused 2 who was 38 years when the crime was committed.” 6 CCT 66/08. 7 CCT 101/09. 8 CCT 124/11. 4