21 adult follows a pattern of ‘spoiling’ the child by, for example, taking the child on outings and giving the child presents and money, there is a gradual process of conditioning and manipulation. [49] The problem we have in this case is that it is clear from the record that the regional magistrate adopted a prima facie view, at an early stage of the trial, that the complainant had been a willing participant in all the various sexual interludes between him and the appellant, to which view the prosecutor appears to have assented. Thus, during the examination-in-chief of the complainant, the following exchanges took place between the regional magistrate and the complainant: ‘Die lank en die kort van die storie is jy het basies altyd die goed toegelaat en saamgespeel nie waar nie? – ‘Ek het dit toegelaat maar . . . ‘En jy het ook saamgespeel want jy het ook vir hom gemasturbeer as dit nodig is? – Later ja maar dit was altyd ook net eerste van sy kant af ek het . . . nooit begin nie.’ ‘En as ek jou reg verstaan het jy op geen stadium vir hom gesê wat blyk dat jy dit nie wil doen nie?’ – ‘Ja ek het dit nooit vir hom gesê nie.’ After the examination-in-chief of the complainant had been completed, the regional magistrate remarked: ‘Op die stadium soos ek die omstandighede nou lees tensy ek anders oortuig kan word, wil dit vir my voorkom of die seun basies saamgespeel het en toegestem het.’ [50] On appeal to the Pretoria High Court, Hartzenberg J commented as follows on the attitude adopted by the regional magistrate in this regard: ‘In fairness to the magistrate the answer to the argument [that the magistrate was wrong not to have found the appellant guilty of indecent assault on the complainant] is that the incidents occurred over a period of four years and that the complainant was an intelligent and well-developed lad. The appellant certainly was justified to think that the complainant was a willing participant. That was exactly the attitude of the magistrate expressed at an early stage of the trial. In the result this question was not really investigated. There is therefore no foundation upon the evidence, to find that the magistrate was wrong and that the appellant was guilty of indecent assault.’ [51] Before us, counsel for the respondent relied on R v Taylor 1927 CPD 16 as support for his argument that, in a case of indecent assault, the onus of proving consent rests upon the accused. This is clearly not correct, as was pointed out by Munnik J in S v D 1963 (3) SA 263 (EC) at 266B-D: