VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J The age of the applicant [23] The High Court accepted Mr Mpofu’s youthfulness as a mitigating factor.22 The question is whether he was under the age of 18 – the constitutional dividing line between a child and an adult – and, if so, whether the High Court was aware of it and duly took it into account. It is necessary to outline the conflicting information that has been put forward as to the applicant’s age. I deal first with the High Court judgment and thereafter with the parties’ submissions and the evidence they rely on. The High Court judgment [24] Mr Mpofu was accused number four in the proceedings in the High Court. In his judgment on conviction, Labuschagne J referred to the age of the accused: “Accused 1 was employed by the deceased and he stayed in the same quarters as the other three state witnesses. He appears to be the youngest of all the accused.”23 [25] In the sentencing judgment accused one is described as “19 years old and . . . a first offender” and later as “at this stage . . . in his early 20s, he was 19 when the incident occurred”.24 [26] In determining the appropriate sentences, the High Court took into account the personal circumstances of each accused. In describing Mr Mpofu, the Court held: 22 S v Thabo Sipho Ndlovu and Others, Case No 12/99, 25 September 2001, unreported (High Court judgment on sentence) at 29. 23 S v Thabo Sipho Ndlovu and Others, Case No 12/99, 4 May 2001, unreported (High Court judgment on conviction) at 13. 24 High Court judgment on sentence above n 22 at 26 and 29. 12