VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [37] On the face of the above it would appear that Mr Mpofu was not older than 17 at the time of the offences, if he was 20 at the time of the sentencing. The applicant and amicus agree that the High Court accepted that he was 16 or 17 – in any event under 18 – but did not deal with his status as a child and referred only to his youthfulness. The DPP argues that the High Court’s statement that he was 20 does not necessarily mean that the Court thought him to be 20 at the time of sentencing. The Court could also have been referring to 1998, when the offences were committed. [38] The DPP submits that the onus to prove age as a mitigating factor is on the accused and that it was not met in this case, because the applicant did not testify on his age. Counsel for the applicant disagrees. Indeed, the responsibility to impose a sentence belongs to the court. Although the court should not be left to speculate, all that is required from an accused is to provide a sufficient factual basis for mitigation, which counsel for the applicant contends was done in this case. The Court should have satisfied itself as to the age of the accused. [39] In my view it appears from the High Court’s remark that it “was informed that accused 4 is 20 years of age”, that Mr Mpofu’s counsel must have conveyed this information to the Court. This statement is made after the straightforward one that “[a]ccused 4 is 20 years old.” Surely the prosecution, or the Court, could have questioned this, based on the applicant’s appearance, or on any apparently contradictory information. The judgment does not show any indication that the information was disputed. It appears that the High Court was informed and accepted 17