certainty,[1] the respondents submitted that is not the case because 16 years as an age of consent is at odds with other legislation relating to children.[2] For example, no one may watch pornography involving a child under 18, but one may have consensual sexual intercourse with that child as long as the child is 16 years or older.[3]
[14]Furthermore, although the Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that Parliament had done “years of research” before arriving at 16 years as the age of consent, the first and second respondents argued that there was no evidence of such depth of research.[4] The only supportive evidence that the State, as respondent, placed before the Supreme Court of Appeal was a report by Doctors For Life International,[5] based on research relating to the cognitive abilities of children and the health risks of homosexual activities, recommending an age of consent of 19 years or even older.
[15] The Minister, as an intervening party before the Supreme Court of Appeal, based her submissions on a psychiatric report by retired psychiatrist Professor Tuviah Zabow. While the report was supportive of an age of consent of 16 years, there was no disagreement with the option of a higher age of consent.
Submissions of the third respondent
- ↑ South African Law Reform Commission Sexual Offences Report Project 107 December 2002 at 58–9.
- ↑ Above n 6.
- ↑ See sections 19 and 20 of the 2007 Act.
- ↑ The Minister, on the other hand, did state that the decision of Parliament was made after “a lengthy process of research, public hearings and debates”, but did not offer further facts to support her view.
- ↑ This report had been submitted to the Portfolio Committee for Justice and Constitutional Development while they were debating the draft of the 2007 Act.
