VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J that an issue is a constitutional matter, furthermore, does not have to result in a finding on the merits of the matter in favour of the applicant who raised it.”18 [19] We do not need absolute certainty on the applicant’s age to come to the conclusion that it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to consider on appeal the constitutional issue he raises. As shown below, the report by Mr Alli, who was appointed by this Court, and the High Court’s judgment contain sufficient indications of the real possibility that he was a child.19 Only an analysis of all the evidence available to us, properly argued by legal representatives, could bring us closer to a conclusion. [20] In my view the missing trial record is a great pity, but cannot be determinative. This application is not about the evidence to determine the guilt or innocence of the applicant and his co-accused or about alleged procedural irregularities. It is about sentencing specifically with regard to age. This is dealt with in detail in the judgment on sentence. The judgment on conviction is also available. Lastly, the time that has elapsed whilst Mr Mpofu brought several applications from behind prison bars cannot in principle override a potential injustice with serious and direct constitutional implications. 18 Id at para 40. See also Fraser v Naude and Another [1998] ZACC 13; 1999 (1) SA 1 (CC); 1998 (11) BCLR 1357 (CC) at para 7, where this Court stated: “The prospects of success are obviously an important issue in deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal. But they are not the only issue to be considered when the interests of justice are being weighed.” (Footnote omitted.) 19 Mr Alli concluded that Mr Mpofu was 16 years old at the time he committed the offence. 10