13 . . Appellant's conduct in my view was sufficiently reprehensible to fall within the category of offences calling for a sentence both reflecting the Court's strong disapproval and hopefully acting as a deterrent to others minded to satisfy their carnal desires with helpless children.’ [34] As to the use of children as objects of pornography, the remarks of the Constitutional Court in De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division & others 2004 (1) SA 406 (CC) are instructive. The Constitutional Court said (para 61): ‘In determining the importance of s 27(1) of the [Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996], it is necessary to examine its objective as a whole. The purpose of the legislation is to curb child pornography, which is seen as an evil in all democratic societies. Child pornography is universally condemned for good reason. It strikes at the dignity of children, it is harmful to children who are used in its production, and it is potentially harmful because of the attitude to child sex that it fosters and the use to which it can be put in grooming children to engage in sexual conduct.’ [35] The Constitutional Court then went on to say the following (para 63): ‘Children's dignity rights are of special importance. The degradation of children through child pornography is a serious harm which impairs their dignity and contributes to a culture which devalues their worth. Society has recognised that childhood is a special stage in life which is to be both treasured and guarded. The State must ensure that the lives of children are not disrupted by adults who objectify and sexualise them through the production and possession of child pornography. There is obvious physical harm suffered by the victims of sexual abuse and by those children forced to yield to the demands of the paedophile and pornographer, but there is also harm to the dignity and perception of all children when a society allows sexualised images of children to be available.’ In this case the respondent gratuitously violated the complainant’s rights to dignity, privacy and physical integrity in a most humiliating and demeaning manner. Accordingly, on the facts of this case one must, in relation to sentence on count 1, keep uppermost in the mind with a measure of abhorrence the respondent’s unfatherly conduct in sexually molesting his stepdaughter. [36] In the result the following order is made: 1 The appeal is upheld. 2 The question of law raised by the State is determined in its favour.