Sandra is a 16-vear-old orphan living with her YB-vear-old aunt Hilda. She has had several run ins with the law since her parents died seven vears ago. At the age of 11, she was arrested on two separate occasions: The first time for being in possession of dagga and a second time, for theft. She could not be prosecuted on both occasions because she lacked the necessarv criminal capacity to appreciate the consequences of her actions. On both occasions, the magistrate referred her for counselling to a home for troubled children. It did not make a difference in her behaviour. Since turning 14, her criminal activities have become worse. She was arrested on three separate occasions since then for the theft of goods worth less than R 300. On all three occasions, she was referred to a diversion programme in an attempt to rehabilitate her and re-integrate her as a productive member, into societv. She does not have a criminal record vet. in her most recent crime, she broke a beer bottle, held it to the throat of a 13-vear-old girl and stole her watch. The magistrate, before whom she appeared, found her guilty. The prosecutor in the matter is adamant that Sandra is a danger to societv and argues that she should get direct imprisonment. You believe that there is still a chance of Sandra being rehabilitated, especially in the light of her youth. You argue that she should rather be sent on a diversion programme again or alternativelv sent to a child and vouth care centre. Use the FIRAC model to put your arguments before the court. Refer to S v Eddy-31997 (2) SACR 518 (C) and 5 vAnderson 1964 {3} SA 494 {A}, which you can nd on Jutastat as case authority as well as the legislation below when formulating your argument