19 There are a number of possibilities. He may have had a homosexual relationship with someone else after his last encounter with the appellant. He may even have had such a relationship during the same time although one would have expected his family to have been aware of it. He may have had more such incidents with the appellant, but if I understand the evidence of Dr Louw correctly, he may have subconsciously dissociated himself from them or Dr Winn may have exaggerated his clinical findings.’ [43] It is true that the complainant’s evidence was not above criticism. However, the regional magistrate was clearly aware of the areas of criticism and nevertheless accepted his evidence. This evidence was corroborated in number of important respects. In particular, the appellant’s conduct when initially confronted by Mrs B, when (according to her evidence) the appellant went deathly pale and repeatedly said that he was sorry, is reconcilable only with the truth of the complainant’s evidence and not with the appellant’s evidence. It must also be remembered that most of the occasions on which the sexual incidents between the complainant and the appellant allegedly happened, are common cause. The appellant himself conceded that he and the complainant were together on those occasions. It was common cause that the appellant was very friendly with all the B children and, in particular, with the complainant, and that he took the latter on outings and spoiled him with gifts. [44] On the other hand, there are many aspects of the appellant’s evidence which to my mind, are most unconvincing. So, for example, the appellant’s version of how he had reacted when initially confronted by Mrs B on January 2003, namely that he had simply said that he was not aware of the events in question and that they had not happened is extremely unlikely. Not only did the appellant, on his version of events, not ask Mrs B any questions about the allegations against him or express any shock or outrage about these allegations, but he also did not tell her that A had on one occasion ‘fiddled’ with the zip of his trousers and that the complainant had informed him of a four-year long homosexual relationship with a school friend, involving anal sex. His ostensible reason for not doing any of these things was that he did not want to get into a conflict with her. So he simply left the house as she had requested him to do. I find this very difficult to believe. [45] The ‘conspiracy theory’ advanced by counsel for the appellant does not ring true. In the words of Hartzenberg J: ‘The argument on behalf of the appellant entails that the complainant falsely told the uncle [H] about the appellant’s conduct, and on top of it asked the uncle not to inform his parents, in the hope that he