age of the victim and the defence of intoxication had not been raised in the High Court and therefore, it could not determine whether the High Court made an error in the consideration of the appeal. 74. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal found that, not only was the age of the victim mentioned in the charge sheet but also there was medical evidence adduced by the doctor who examined the girl, that proved that she was eight (8) years old. 75. As regards the defence of intoxication, the Court of Appeal held that it was neither raised during the Applicant’s trial nor is it a defence for rape. The Court of Appeal then evaluated the evidence adduced by the witnesses during the Applicant’s trial and found that the charge had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and the sentence was legal. 76. The Court finds that the manner in which the Court of Appeal evaluated the Applicant’s appeal does not disclose any manifest error or miscarriage of justice. 77. Consequently, the Court, dismisses this allegation and finds that the Respondent State has not violated Article 7(1) of the Charter. B. Alleged violation of the right to free legal assistance 78. The Applicant avers that Section 3 of the Legal Aid Act (criminal proceedings) (Act 21 of 1969) imposes an obligation on the “certifying authority” to grant legal aid where it is desirable in the interest of justice or where the accused does not have the means to retain an advocate. He therefore argues that, there is no stipulation in the Legal Aid Act (criminal proceedings) (Act 21 of 1969) that the accused must request for legal aid in order for it to be granted. 17