58 would in any event defeat one of the very purposes for which s 51 of Act 105 of 1997 was enacted. [104] The trial court also correctly found that the involvement of the complainant’s male family members and grandmother was nothing more than a neutral factor insofar as the appellant’s own blameworthiness was concerned. It thus found that substantial and compelling circumstances existed which justified the imposition of a lesser sentence than that prescribed on the counts of rape. Similarly no criticism can be levelled at the sentence imposed by the trial court when exercising its ordinary penal jurisdiction on the count of trafficking. Conclusion [105] In the result, save only in respect of the convictions on the counts of assault, there is no basis for this court to interfere in the trial court’s decision. [106] We thus make the following order: 1. The appeal succeeds in part. 2. The appellant’s convictions on the counts of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and common assault, are hereby set aside.