Page:Geldenhuys v NDPP.djvu/19

14(1)(b) and section 14(3)(b) of the Act. The incongruity that would be created by accepting the suggestion to raise the age limit to 18 years can be neither just nor equitable. It must be borne in mind that there has as yet been no attack on the constitutionality of any of this legislation on the basis that the 16-year age limit is too low.

[43]⁠I accordingly find that the remedial order made by the Supreme Court of Appeal is just and equitable.

Costs

[44]⁠These are confirmatory proceedings which arise from criminal proceedings and which under our Constitution are mandatory for this Court to hear. It is therefore appropriate that no costs order be made.

Order

[45]⁠The following order is made:

1.

The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal to the following effect is

confirmed:

“1.1⁠ It is declared that, with effect from 27 April 1994, ss 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 are inconsistent with the Constitution and hence invalid to the extent that these sections differentiate between heterosexual and same-sex sexual activities by setting the legal age of consent at 16 and 19 years, respectively.

1.2⁠ It is declared that, with effect from 27 April 1994, s 14(1)(b) of Act 23 of 1957 is to be read as though the words ‘under the age of 19 years’ after