[5] The accused admitted the facts that were outlined by the prosecution and in mitigation of sentence he expressed remorse and sought the Court’s leniency on the ground that he is the sole bread winner for all his kids. [6] The trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment for ten (10) years without the option of a fine, the minimum prescribed in the Sexual Offences Act.1 In handing down the sentence, the Court a quo did not state which factors it took into consideration in terms of what appears on the record of proceedings in that having recorded the plea in mitigation it simply ordered as follows:Sentence : 10 years, no fine. [7] It is against this background that this Court feels duty bound to evaluate whether the sentence that was handed down is just given the particular facts of this case. In doing so, I am largely guided by the principles that were espoused in the by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the South African case of S v Vilakazi 2 which have been consistently applied in our jurisdiction. [8] In that case, although the Court was dealing with the issue of the severity of the sentence that was imposed, the same principles apply mutatis mutandis where the sentence imposed is found to be too lenient 1 2 Act No. 3 of 2003 2009 (1) SACR 552 (SCA)