MOGOENG CJ restrictive means, speak quite forcefully against the preservation of the common law defence of reasonable and moderate parental chastisement. There is, on the material before us, therefore, no justification for its continued existence, for it does not only limit the rights in sections 10 and 12 of the Constitution, but it also violates them unjustifiably. Conclusion [72] It suffices to say that any form of violence, including reasonable and moderate chastisement, has always constituted a criminal act known as assault. The effect of relying on this common law defence was to exempt parents from prosecution or conviction. Identical conduct by a person other than a parent on the same child would otherwise constitute indefensible assault. [73] The High Court was correct in its conclusion that the common law defence of reasonable and moderate chastisement is constitutionally invalid and that this declaration be prospective in its operation. [74] A proliferation of assault cases against parents is a reasonably foreseeable possibility. Parliament would, hopefully, allow itself to be guided by extensive consultations, research and debates before it pronounces finally on an appropriate regulatory framework. That approach would enable it to benefit not just from lobby groups, but also from parents and possibly children themselves whose interests are at stake. [75] How law enforcement agencies would deal with reported cases of child abuse flowing from this declaration of unconstitutionality is a matter best left to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Order [76] In the result, the following order is made: 27