12 HH 547-23 CA 480/19 target audience was unresponsive to the incitement or that the people targeted had no intention of acting on the incitement or that they did not know that they were being incited. For the reasons stated above, the appeal against conviction lacks merit. Appeal against sentence As stated above, this court sitting as a court of appeal does not interfere with a sentence imposed in a lower court unless it considers that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred. There is a miscarriage of justice if there was a material misdirection or if the sentence is disturbingly inappropriate or so severe as to induce a sense of shock. Lacking a misdirection or an irregularity, this court will not interfere with the sentencing discretion of the trial court unless the severity of the sentence amounts to a miscarriage of justice. See S v Sadat 1997(1) ZLR 487 (S). In this case the appellant has not made any specific allegation of a misdirection or an irregularity or that the sentence induces a sense of shock. He has simply asked this court to substitute its own discretion. We find no misdirection in the manner in which the trail court approached the issue of sentence. It gave detailed reasons for sentence after weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors. It properly took into account the appellant’s chronic health condition. He suffers from asthma and hypertension. It settled for imprisonment because it was of the view that the appellant’s utterances had a strong bearing on the disturbances that occurred on the day following his utterances. The disturbances were widespread and violent. He was a senior member of the MDC political party and he ought to have known that his utterances would have a real impact on his flock. The court a quo considered the non-custodial options of a fine or community service but ruled them out giving reasons. It is not correct, as alleged in the first ground of appeal against sentence, that the court did not pronounce itself on the option of non-custodial sentencing options. In so doing the court judiciously exercised its sentencing discretion which is not lightly interfered with on appeal. The penalty prescribed for public violence is either a fine not exceeding level twelve or imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years or both. The penalty clause is unambiguous. It shall be an aggravating circumstance if, in the course of or as a result of the public violence there