7 court convicted the accused on the charges that were not put to him. Those convictions were set aside on review. [25] There can be no verdict unless the accused has pleaded to the charge. Further, a conviction can only occur in respect of a charge on which the accused is indicted.4 [26] Given that there was no charge of distribution of child pornography in this matter, the plea of guilty to that offence by the appellant was a nullity. There being no charge and no plea, the conviction of distribution was irregular and amounted to a failure of justice. Accordingly, in terms of section 304(4) of the CPA, the conviction and sentence for the distribution of child pornography are set aside. The appeal against sentence [27] The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten (10) years for possession of child pornography in contravention of section 24B(1)(a) of the Act. [28] The appellant’s representative, Mr Maluleke, argued that the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was harsh and induced a sense of shock regard being had to the sentences imposed in similar decided cases in South Africa, that the Magistrate failed to take the personal circumstances of the appellant into account, and that the Magistrate failed to take cognisance of the pre-sentencing reports by the social worker and the correctional services officer, who also testified in mitigation, and the evidence of the appellant’s therapist. [29] Mr Maluleke contended that a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment, alternatively, a sentence of correctional supervision in terms of section 276(1)(h) of the CPA, further alternatively, a sentence of less than ten (10) years’ imprisonment should 4 S v Bam 2020 (2) SACR 584 WCC at [54].