4 [13] At the postponement on 16 July 2018, the ‘charge sheet’ was handed to the defence and the prosecutor stated that the State would proceed on ‘all charge’. [14] Whilst it is not clear from the record if this was a reference to the possession of 4489 contents of child pornography or a reference to charges of both possession and distribution, counsel for the State at the hearing before us informed the Court that the State never intended to prefer a charge of distribution against the appellant as the State could not prove it; furthermore, that it would have been unethical for the State to charge the appellant with distribution based on the appellant’s guilty plea. [15] The full charge sheet with all the appearances appears in the record but it does not contain any charge of distribution or any reference to distribution of child pornography, other than that stated by the prosecutor in court at the first appearance on 25 August 2017. [16] In his judgement on conviction, the Magistrate stated that the appellant was charged with a contravention of section 24B(1) of the Act, in that on 24 August 2017 and at Elandspark the appellant possessed child pornography. He further stated that this charge was put to the appellant and he pleaded guilty to ‘count 1 to 4489’. The Magistrate was satisfied on the plea statement that the appellant admitted all the allegations in the ‘charge sheet’ and he convicted the appellant of contravening section 24B(1)(a) and (d) of the Act, to wit, possession of 4489 contents of child pornography in terms of section 24B(1)(a), and distribution of four (4) images in terms of section 24B(1) (d) of the Act as reflected in counts 2222, 2247, 2270 and 2302. [17] It was incumbent on the Magistrate to ensure that the admissions in the plea statement corresponded with the allegations in the charge. The Magistrate might put questions to the accused to resolve discrepancies between the two documents. In this