9 [33] The Magistrate in this case took into account the personal circumstances and the childhood history of the appellant as well as the evidence presented by the defence in mitigation. [34] The Magistrate had due regard to the purposes of punishment and the constitutional rights of children as well as the rights of the appellant. The court a quo was mindful not to over-emphasize any interest in the case against another and to strike a balance between the interests of society and the interests of the appellant. [35] The Magistrate noted that the children in the pornographic contents possessed by the appellant were apparently mostly under the age of eight (8) years, and that legislation has been enacted in this country to protect these most vulnerable members of society from crimes such as those committed by the appellant. [36] The Magistrate observed that the possession of child pornography promoted the production thereof and that the appellant had participated in an industry that fosters the sexual abuse of children. It was appropriate that the victims of the appellant’s crimes receive some recognition in the sentence to be imposed. The remarks of the Magistrate regarding the disturbing nature of the contents in this case were not out of place and I find that the Magistrate’s treatment of the question of sentence was not clouded by emotion. [37] The Magistrate considered the various sentencing options. The court a quo found that a fine or a suspended sentence would not properly reflect the gravity of the offences or serve the purpose of sentence. Additionally, the court a quo found that correctional supervision in terms of sections 276(1)(h) or (i) of the CPA would not serve the aims of deterrence or reform adequately and would send the wrong message to the community regarding child pornography. The Magistrate in this matter did not misdirect