who is under the age of eighteen (18) years.12 The Court of Appeal however indicated that the District Court had subsequently corrected the error by charging the Applicant with the correct charge and, therefore, the Applicant was convicted under the right charge. 58. Consequently, the Court finds that the conduct of the Applicant’s trial does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice to the Applicant. The Court, therefore, dismisses the Applicant’s allegation on this point. B. Allegation related to the evidence of the complainant 59. The Applicant argues that the evidence of the complainant was wrongfully taken on oath and relied upon, since the victim was twelve (12) years old and she was not asked whether she understood the nature of an oath. 60. The Respondent State contends that the District Court conducted the voir dire proceedings13 as required by Section 127(2) and (3) of the Evidence Act 2002 and found that the complainant was able to distinguish between truth and lies. The Respondent State avers that although the appellate courts were not convinced that the voir dire proceedings were properly undertaken, they found that the other evidence adduced was sufficient to convict the Applicant. *** 61. Article 7(1) of the Charter provides that “(e)very individual shall have the right to have his cause heard …” 62. This Court has in the past noted “… that a fair trial requires that the imposition of a sentence in a criminal offence, and in particular a heavy prison sentence, should be based on strong and credible evidence. That is 12 Section 130(2) of the Penal Code (2002). This is a procedure conducted by a court where it assesses whether a child of tender years is capable of comprehending the nature and obligation an oath. 13 14