10 himself in finding that a non-custodial sentence to enable the appellant to receive treatment for his pornography addiction would focus unduly on the rehabilitation of the appellant and would reduce the retributive and deterrent elements of the punishment, to the extent that it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.9 [38] The court a quo concluded that direct imprisonment would properly address all the aims of punishment. In coming to this conclusion, the Magistrate considered the totality of the information before him and I find that he evaluated it correctly. He did not misstate any of the facts or the law. The exercise of the court a quo’s discretion was not vitiated by any misdirection and the sentence imposed was not disturbingly inappropriate. It was not a misdirection to apply to this case what was stated in Essop10 quoting the author Iyavar Chetty in ‘The Trivialisation of Child Pornography Crimes in South African Courts’, and in following Alberts11 regarding the unsuitability of noncustodial sentences in child pornography cases. Nor did the Magistrate accord undue weight to what was stated in those authorities. Accordingly, the sentence imposed by the court a quo must be and is confirmed by this Court. [39] In the result the following order is made: 1. The appeal against sentence for possession of child pornography in contravention of section 24B(1)(a) of the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996 is dismissed. 2. The conviction of distribution of child pornography in contravention of section 24B(1)(d) of the Films and Publications Act 65 of 1996, and the sentence imposed therefor are set aside. 9 10 11 S v AR 2017 (2) SACR 402 WCC at [50] – [52]. Note 6 above. Note 5 above.