8 have been imposed by the Magistrate. In addition, Mr Maluleke argued that the appellant was not a danger to society and that he would suffer punishment for his crimes as a result of his career being hampered by his criminal record. [30] Counsel for the State argued that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed. The Magistrate had taken the personal circumstances of the appellant into account as well as the evidence in mitigation. There was no misdirection by the Magistrate who, in assessing all the information before him, attached due weight to all the circumstances. The gravity of the offences committed by the appellant and the worldwide prevalence of sexual crimes against children called for a response from South African courts that was consistent with the approach adopted in foreign jurisdictions, and that was overdue in South Africa. The State’s counsel referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng v Alberts5 and Essop v State6 in support of its argument. [31] Sentencing is pre-eminently a matter within the discretion of the trial court and a court of appeal will not lightly interfere with the exercise of that discretion. The essential inquiry is not whether the sentence was right or wrong but whether the sentencing court exercised its discretion properly and judicially.7 [32] Where the disparity between the sentence imposed and the sentence that the appeal court would have imposed is so marked that the sentence can be described as disturbingly inappropriate, an appeal court will interfere.8 5 6 7 8 Director of Public Prosecutions North Gauteng v Alberts 2016 (2) SACR 419 GP. Essop v State (Case no 432/2020) [2021] ZASCA 66 (‘Essop’). R v S 1958 (3) SA 102 AD at 104 B; S v Pillay 1977 (4) SA 531 AD at 535 E. S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 SCA at [12].