56 on what is essentially a single offence and consequently, would amount to a duplication of punishment. Sentence [99] It is trite that a court of appeal may only interfere with a sentence imposed by the trial court if there has been a material misdirection or the sentence imposed is shocking, startling, or disturbingly inappropriate. [100] As a first offender for the multiple rape of a minor, and for trafficking a person for sexual purposes, the appellant faced life imprisonment in terms of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, unless the trial court was satisfied that substantial and compelling circumstances existed which justified the imposition of a lesser sentence in accordance with s 51(3). However the charge sheet in respect of the count of trafficking did not reflect the minimum sentence provision. [101] We note the distinction between Part 1 of Schedule 2 (which refers to s 71 of the Sexual Offences Act) on the one hand, and s 305(8) of the Children’s Act on the other, which stipulates that a maximum of 10 years imprisonment may be imposed for child trafficking. It would appear that the distinction lies in the purpose of the trafficking, given that s 285(1) of the Children’s Act (creating the statutory offence of child trafficking) does not specifically refer to trafficking for sexual purposes. This indicates to us that the legislature regards the