Page:Geldenhuys v NDPP.djvu/7

Rh certainty, 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. 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.

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. The only supportive evidence that the State, as respondent, placed before the Supreme Court of Appeal was a report by Doctors For Life International, 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 Rh