Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions

Last updated
Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions
Constitutional court of South Africa.jpeg
Court Constitutional Court of South Africa
Full case nameGeldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others
Decided26 November 2008
Citation(s) [2008] ZACC 21, 2009 (2) SA 310 (CC), 2009 (1) SACR 231 (CC), 2009 (5) BCLR 435 (CC)
Case history
Appealed from Supreme Court of Appeal (S v Geldenhuys [2008] ZASCA 47)
Court membership
Judges sitting Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen & Yacoob JJ
Case opinions
Decision byJustice Mokgoro

Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down as unconstitutional a law which set the age of consent at 19 for homosexual sex but only 16 for heterosexual sex. [1]

Contents

Background

Section 14(1) of the Sexual Offences Act, 1957, as amended in 1969 and 1988, read as follows:

(1) Any male person who—

(a) has or attempts to have unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years; or
(b) commits or attempts to commit with such a girl or with a boy under the age of 19 years an immoral or indecent act; or
(c) solicits or entices such a girl or boy to the commission of an immoral or indecent act,

shall be guilty of an offence.

Section 14(3), added in 1988, contained a mirror provision with the genders inverted. The effect of these sections was to fix the age of consent at 16 for heterosexual sex and 19 for homosexual sex.

The Interim Constitution of South Africa, which came into force in 1994, contained a provision prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and this provision was preserved in the final Constitution of South Africa, which came into force in 1997. In 1998, in the case of National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice , the Constitutional Court struck down as unconstitutional the laws prohibiting consensual sex between men, based on the prohibition of discrimination and the right to privacy. That case did not address the unequal age of consent, although in his judgment Justice Ackermann took note of it without commenting on its constitutionality.

In 2007 Parliament enacted the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, which codified and reformed the law on sexual offences. It repealed section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act, and fixed a uniform age of consent of 16. This reform did not, however, have retrospective effect.

History of the case

Geldenhuys was convicted in 2005 in the Pretoria Regional Court on ten charges of "committing an immoral or indecent act with a boy under the age of nineteen years" in contravention of section 14(1)(b). Four of the charges related to acts committed when the boy was aged fourteen and fifteen, while the other six related to acts committed when he was sixteen or older. The total sentence handed down was eleven years' imprisonment.

Geldenhuys appealed to the Transvaal Provincial Division of the High Court on several grounds. He attacked the correctness of the verdict on the evidence presented; he also asserted that it was unconstitutional to prohibit consensual sex with a person over the age of twelve because the common law regarded twelve as the age at which a child was capable of consenting; and he attacked the sentence. The issue of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was not raised at this stage. The appeal against conviction was rejected, but the sentence was reduced to seven years.

Geldenhuys appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). The arguments made in the High Court were rejected by the SCA as they had been in the lower court. However, before the hearing the SCA pointed out the possible unconstitutionality of the unequal age of consent, and invited argument on that point. Both parties agreed that the law discriminated unfairly on the basis of sexual orientation and the government conceded that there was no justification for the discrimination. The court consequently found that sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) were unconstitutional because they violated section nine of the Constitution, and that the words "under the age of 19 years" should be struck out and replaced by the words "under the age of 16 years". The conviction of Geldenhuys on the six later charges was set aside.

Judgment

The SCA's order was referred to the Constitutional Court for confirmation, in compliance with the requirement that any court order declaring an Act of Parliament to be unconstitutional be confirmed by the Constitutional Court before it has effect. The court heard oral argument on 28 August 2008 and handed down its unanimous decision, authored by Justice Mokgoro, on 26 November.

The argument for Geldenhuys was simple: the inequality in the age of consent was discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; there was no justification for the discrimination; and therefore it was unconstitutional. Consequently, the SCA was correct in altering the affected sections to reduce the age limit from 19 to 16. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) conceded the unconstitutionality, but argued that the age limits in sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) should be set at a uniform 18 rather than 16. The NPA justified this argument by reference to the legal definition of "child" as including all people under the age of 18, and to the fact that 18 was the age limit in other related laws, such as those prohibiting child pornography.

The court rejected the NPA's argument, pointing out that it would create an incongruity in the law. Firstly, the effect of the NPA's proposal would be to set the age of consent at 16 for acts termed "carnal intercourse" but 18 for those termed "immoral or indecent acts", and this would in fact cause the unconstitutional discrimination to persist, as "carnal intercourse" was understood to include only heterosexual sex. Secondly, Parliament had already chosen to set 16 as the uniform age of consent in the 2007 amendment act.

The Constitutional Court therefore confirmed unaltered the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The words "under the age of 19 years" were to be replaced by the words "under the age of 16 years" in sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act, and, subject to certain limitations, the order was made retrospective to 27 April 1994, the date on which the Interim Constitution came into force.

See also

Related Research Articles

The Bolton 7 were a group of gay and bisexual men who were convicted on 12 January 1998 in the United Kingdom before Judge Michael Lever at Bolton Crown Court of the offences of gross indecency under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and of age of consent offences under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Although gay sex was partially decriminalised by the Sexual Offences Act 1967, they were all convicted under section 13 of the 1956 Act because more than two men had sex together, which was still illegal. One of the participants was also six months under the statutory age of consent for gay sex which was 18 at the time.

The legal age of consent for sexual activity varies by jurisdiction across Asia. The specific activity engaged in or the gender of participants can also be relevant factors. Below is a discussion of the various laws dealing with this subject. The highlighted age refers to an age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another who is also at or above that age. Other variables, such as homosexual relations or close in age exceptions, may exist, and are noted when relevant, for example in Indonesia.

The ages of consent for sexual activity vary from age 15 to 18 across Australia, New Zealand and other parts of Oceania. The specific activity and the gender of its participants is also addressed by the law. The minimum age is the age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another person of minimum age. Close in age exceptions may exist and are noted where applicable. In Vanuatu the homosexual age of consent is set higher at 18, while the heterosexual age of consent is 15. Same sex sexual activity is illegal at any age for males in Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Samoa, Niue, Tonga and Tuvalu; it is outlawed for both men and women in the Solomon Islands. In all other places the age of consent is independent of sexual orientation or gender.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ages of consent in Africa</span> Ages of consent for sexual activity in the countries of Africa

The age of consent in Africa for sexual activity varies by jurisdiction across the continent. The specific activity engaged in or the gender of its participants can also affect this age and the legality of sexual activity. The highlighted age refers to an age at or above which an individual can engage in unfettered sexual relations with another person who is also at or above that age. Other variables, for example homosexual and/or sodomy provision(s) that are illegal or close in age exceptions may exist and are stated when relevant.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Trinidad and Tobago</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in Trinidad and Tobago face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Households headed by same-sex couples are not eligible for the same rights and benefits as that of opposite-sex couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in the British Virgin Islands</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in the British Virgin Islands face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the British Virgin Islands since 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Dominica</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Dominica face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT residents. Sodomy, also known as "buggery", is illegal for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Dominica provides no recognition to same-sex unions, whether in the form of marriage or civil unions, and no law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Another v Minister of Justice and Others is a decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which struck down the laws prohibiting consensual sexual activities between men. Basing its decision on the Bill of Rights in the Constitution – and in particular its explicit prohibition of discrimination based on sexual orientation – the court unanimously ruled that the crime of sodomy, as well as various other related provisions of the criminal law, were unconstitutional and therefore invalid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sodomy law</span> Laws criminalising certain sexual acts

A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be "unnatural" or "immoral". Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexual couples.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Antigua and Barbuda</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Antigua and Barbuda may face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Belize</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons in Belize face legal challenges not experienced by non-LGBT citizens, although attitudes have been changing in recent years. Same-sex sexual activity was decriminalized in Belize in 2016, when the Supreme Court declared Belize's anti-sodomy law unconstitutional. Belize's constitution prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, which Belizean courts have interpreted to include sexual orientation.

<i>Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi</i> Indian LGBT Rights Case

Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2009) is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However, even that was overturned by a 5 judge bench in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India in 2018, decriminalizing homosexuality once again.

<i>Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice</i>

Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong. Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Tuvalu</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Tuvalu face challenges not faced by non-LGBT people. Sections 153, 154 and 155 of the Penal Code outlaw male homosexual intercourse with a penalty of up to 14 years in prison, but the law is not enforced. Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has been banned since 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007</span>

The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2007 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa that reformed and codified the law relating to sex offences. It repealed various common law crimes and replaced them with statutory crimes defined on a gender-neutral basis. It expanded the definition of rape, previously limited to vaginal sex, to include all non-consensual penetration; and it equalised the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual sex at 16. The act provides various services to the victims of sexual offences, including free post-exposure prophylaxis for HIV, and the ability to obtain a court order to compel HIV testing of the alleged offender. It also created the National Register for Sex Offenders, which records the details of those convicted of sexual offences against children or people who are mentally disabled.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual Offences Act, 1957</span> South African legislation

The Sexual Offences Act, 1957 is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which, in its current form, prohibits prostitution, brothel-keeping and procuring, and other activities related to prostitution. Before the law relating to sex offences was consolidated and revised by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2007, it also prohibited various other sex offences, including sex with children under the age of consent and sex with the mentally incompetent. As the Immorality Act it was infamous for prohibiting sex between a white person and a person of another race, until that prohibition was removed by a 1985 amendment.

This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.

<i>Secretary for Justice v Yau Yuk Lung Zigo</i>

Secretary for Justice v Yau Yuk Lung Zigo and Another was a controversial and significant judicial review court case in Hong Kong. The case was mainly about sexual orientation discrimination and legal procedures of potentially unconstitutional legislation. The case also led to the creation of a new judicial review standard regarding discrimination and, later on, the extension of protection against domestic violence for LGBT community.

Article 365 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code criminalizes "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" and provides for a penalty of up to ten years in prison.

References

  1. "Consent judgment welcomed". News24. Sapa. 26 November 2008. Retrieved 27 November 2011.