Page:Geldenhuys v NDPP.djvu/6

Rh this Honourable Court”, they did seek to dispel the notion that this matter is as simple and straightforward as suggested by the applicant. They conceded that the relevant provisions of the Act are discriminatory and unconstitutional. But, they submitted, there is a remaining question, which is to determine what the uniform age of consent should be.

In their submissions, the first and second respondents acknowledged that the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act set a uniform age of consent of 16 years and that this fact carried great weight with the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, they made much of the variance between this age of consent and the constitutional definition of a child as a person below the age of 18 years, contending that the uniform age of consent must be consistent with that definition.

In addition, first and second respondents contended that this Court, in the context of child abuse, has also held that children are persons below the age of 18 years. Hence, they argued, cogent reasons are required for departing from the notion of a child being a person below the age of 18 years as defined in the Constitution and other relevant instruments. Although the South African Law Reform Commission was of the view that the age of 16 years was retained for the purpose of legal Rh