VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J [35] As indicated above, it is stated in the sentencing judgment that Mr Mpofu – as accused four – “is 20 years old”, as well as that the Court “was informed that accused 4 is 20 years of age”. If these statements refer to his age at the time of sentencing – September 2001 – he must have been 17 when the offences were committed in January 1998. This is contradicted only by the Court’s statement that accused one – and not Mr Mpofu – “appears to be the youngest of all the accused”, read together with the statement that accused one was in his early 20s at the stage of sentencing and was 19 when the incident occurred. This would make Mr Mpofu older than 19 when the offences were committed. However, it has to be noted that accused one only appeared to the Court to be the youngest of the accused. This statement was made in the judgment on conviction as a part of the trial judge’s summary of evidence. The ages of the accused were not relevant and had not been investigated at that time. The observation based on accused one’s appearance cannot outweigh the direct reference to age in the sentencing judgment, where the personal circumstances of the accused were specifically scrutinised. [36] It is to be noted that the references to the age of accused one – in the sentencing judgment – are also contradictory. First, he is stated to be “19 years old”, and then to be “at this stage [presumably of sentencing] . . . in his early 20s [and] . . . 19 when the incident occurred”.29 29 High Court judgment on sentence above n 22 at 26 and 29. 16