Page:NCGLE v Minister of Justice.djvu/80



Rh rape’ his sodomy conviction should not be set aside without being replaced by an appropriate new conviction for indecent assault. In the opinion of the applicants’ counsel the broad relief sought by their clients in paragraphs (b) and (d) did not facilitate that process and they accordingly abandoned the claim to that relief.”

The reason why the applicants did not in the result persist with the relief sought in paragraph (f) of their Notice of Motion in the High Court is reflected as follows in the judgment of that Court: “… problems of the sort posed by the common-law crimes are not presented by the invalidation of convictions in terms of section 20A of the Sexual Offences Act. The

Rh