10 D. There it was said that the nature of the sentence imposed could never be a question of law decided in favour of the convicted person. In Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Mphaphama this court cited the dictum in Mosterd (at 640C-D) with approval. It went on to say the following (para 11): ‘[C]ertainly, when it comes to the exercise of a judicial discretion in favour of a convicted person in regard to sentence, that cannot be a question of law decided in favour of his or her favour. The definition of an appeal in the Superior Courts Act, however, overrides a consideration of s 311 of the CPA, in terms of the decision in Kock. This has to prevail, even if [the] argument that there is indeed a question of law were to be correct.’ [24] A brief analysis of some of the cases upon which counsel for the respondent strongly relied is essential. In Olivier this court was primarily concerned with the question whether the State can appeal against a lenient sentence imposed by a High Court substituting a sentence imposed by a magistrate’s court. It found that the CPA does not provide for such an appeal when no question of law was implicated. [25] In Mtshweni this court was called upon to determine a question of law reserved for decision in terms of s 319 of the CPA. And that question was whether the trial judge was obliged to call a witness under s 186 of the CPA whose evidence was essential to a just decision of the case. This court found that failure to do so amounted to an error of law. In addition, this court noted 9 that there could be no appeal by the State against an acquittal where the court had erred in evaluating the facts or in drawing inferences, even if the error was grave. [26] Again in Kock this court dealt with a situation similar to that in Olivier. There the State had sought an increase of a sentence imposed by the High Court sitting as a court of appeal on the basis that such a sentence was disturbingly lenient. Whilst this court acknowledged that the State’s disgruntlement with the sentence was understandable, it nonetheless struck the appeal from the roll for want of jurisdiction. As with Olivier, no question of law was implicated. [27] In Mphaphama the State appealed against a sentence imposed by the High Court sitting as a court of appeal from the regional court. There the High Court had 9 Paras 19-22.