given the relevant circumstances. Thus in Vilakazi (supra), in quoting with approval the relevant parts of the remarks that were enunciated in the earlier case of R v Malgas3, Nugent JA stated as follows:“…it is incumbent upon a court in every case, before it imposes a prescribed sentence, to assess, upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the particular case, whether the prescribed sentence is indeed proportionate to the particular offence. The Constitutional Court made it clear that what is meant by the “offence” in that context (and that is the sense in which I will use the term throughout this judgment unless the context indicates otherwise) “consists of all factors relevant to the nature and seriousness of the criminal act itself, as well as all relevant personal and other circumstances relating to the offender which could have a bearing on the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender.” …That was also made clear in Malgas, which said that the relevant provision in the Act vests the sentencing court with the power, indeed the obligation, to consider whether the particular circumstances of the case require a different sentence to be imposed. And a different sentence must be imposed if the court is satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances exist which “justify” … it…. On each one of the grounds that I have referred to the court below materially misdirected itself and the sentence that it imposed cannot stand, which means that we must ourselves evaluate whether life imprisonment is indeed a proportionate sentence, in accordance with the approach that was laid sown in Malgas. If the sentencing court on consideration of the circumstances of the particular case is satisfied that they 3 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA)