The lack of protection for juvenile sex offenders in South African law: a critical analysis of Section 50(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment, Act 32 of 2007 and Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure, Act 51 of 1977

• Author: Danielle De Bruyn
• DOI: 10.10520/EJC-1070ab65c6
• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Date: 01 July 2018
• Record Number: dejure_v51_n1_a6
• Pages: 65-81

65

The lack of protection for juvenile sex

offenders in South African law: a critical

analysis of Section 50(2) of the Criminal

Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters)

Amendment, Act 32 of 2007 and Section 18

of the Criminal Procedure, Act 51 of 1977

Danielle de Bruyn*

LLB LLM

Candidate Attorney at Weavind & Weavind Inc.

OPSOMMING

Die gebrek aan beskerming vir minderjarige seksuele oortreders in die Suid-

Afrikaanse eg: ’n kritiese analise van Artikel 50(2) van die Wysigingswet op

die Strafreg (Seksuele Misdrywe en Verwante Aangeleenthede, Wet 32 van

2007 en Artikel 18 van die Strafproseswet, Wet 51 van 197

Die onlangse uitspraak deur die Suid-Gauteng Hooggeregshof in verband

met artikel 18 van die Strafproseswet aangaande seksuele misdade teen

beide volwasse- en jeugdige slagoffers, en gevolglik moontlik ook indirek,

seksuele misdade deur beide volwasse- en jeugdige oortreders; asook die

Konstitusionele Hof uitspraak ten opsigte van die Nasionale Register vir

Seksuele Oortreders,wat spesifiek betrekking het op artikel 50(2) van die

Wysigingswet op die Strafreg (Seksuele Misdrywe en Verwante Aangeleent-

hede), laat die vraag ontstaan of die Suid-Afrikaanse regsisteem enige

vorm van beskerming bied aan minderjarige seksoortreeders? Hierdie

artikel ondersoek twee spesifieke bepalings in Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing

met betrekking tot die grondwetlikheid en toepassing daarvan op

minderjarige seksoortreders, naamlik artikel 50(2) van die Wysigingswet

op die Strafreg (Seksuele Misdrywe en Verwante Aangeleenthede), asook

artikel 18 van die Strafproseswet. Hierdie twee bepalings word ingevolge

onlangse regspraak oorweeg om vas te stel of dit ’n skending is van die

regte wat minderjarige seksuele oortreders het ingevolge die Suid-

Afrikaanse reg.

1Introduction

The recent judgment passed down by the South Gauteng High Court with

regard to section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA)

pertaining to sexual crimes committed against both adult and juvenile

victims and, thus indirectly, crimes committed by both adult and juvenile

How to cit e: De Bruyn ‘The lack of protection for juvenile sex offenders in South African law: a critical analysis

of Section 50(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment, Act 32 of 2007 and

Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure, Act 51 of 1977’ 2018 De Jure 65-81

http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2225-7160/2018/v51n1a5

* This article is derived from my LLB dissertation prepared under the

supervision of Professor PA Carstens during the completion of my LLM. I

have updated it insofar as there have been new developments in the law

since the submission of the dissertation in 2014.

66 2018 De Jure

sex offenders,1 as well as the Constitutional Court judgment in relation

to the National Register for Sex Offenders2 pertaining specifically to

section 50(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters)

Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (SORMA), highlights the question whether

South African law affords any form of protection to juvenile sex

offenders.

Consider the following scenario. Marc, a ten-year-old boy and Sally, his

next-door neighbour, who is nine years old, decide to play ‘doctor-

doctor’.3 During their play Marc inspects Sally’s entire body in order to

determine what ‘disease’ she has.4 In the course of the ‘examination’

Sally’s mother walks into the playroom and is faced with Sally naked on

the floor and Marc ‘examining’ and touching Sally’s body.5

In terms of the SORMA Marc’s conduct amounts to a ‘sexual offence’

due to the fact that the Act is extremely broadly defined and includes

everything from rape to kissing.6 The ten-year-old juvenile will now be

placed on the National Register for Sex Offenders (‘the Register’) in

compliance with section 50(2) of the SORMA, which demands that the

presiding officer enter the individual’s (adult or child’s) details into the

Register.7 In addition to this and in light of section 18 of the CPA recently

being declared unconstitutional,8 criminal proceedings can now be

instituted against Marc at any time in the future, as the prescription

period of twenty years in relation to the institution of criminal

proceedings, provided for in terms of this section, no longer finds

application to sexual offences.9 Does this account amount to a

reasonable and justifiable form of punishment in relation to the scenario

at hand? Is it fair and just to place an adolescent’s details on a Register

that has consequences that last for the rest of their lives?

1L v Frankel (29573/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 140 (15 June 2017) – own

emphasis added.

2J v NDPP (2014) ZACC 13.

3 The term ‘playing doctor/doctor-doctor’ is used to describe children’s

exploration of one another’s body, specifically one another’s genitals. It is

important to note that such conduct is deemed normal (as part of growing

up) by child psychologists – Harris & Emberley It’s Perfectly Normal:

Changing Bodies, Growing up, Sex and Sexual Health (1994).

4De Bruyn The Constitutionality of placing a juvenile on the National Register

for Sex Offenders (LLB dissertation 2014 UP) 1.

5De Bruyn supra n4 at 1.

6J v NDPP supra n2 at par 79 – the amicus curiae argued that the section in

the SORMA defining sexual conduct is too wide.

7 S 50(2)(a) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters)

Amendment Act 32 of 2007 reads as follows:

‘A court that has in terms of this Act or any other law – (i) convicted a person of a

sexual offence against a child or a person who is mentally disabled … must make

an order that the particulars of the person be included in the Register [own

emphasis added]’.

8 See L v Frankel supra n1.

9 The decision of the South Gauteng High Court in L v Frankel supra n1, is

subject to approval from the Constitutional Court in line with s 172(2)(a) of

the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter the

Constitution).