ZONDI AJ [4] The confirmation proceedings raise three interrelated questions. The first is whether section 18 of the CPA is inconsistent with the Constitution. The second, which arises only if section 18 is inconsistent with the Constitution, relates to the appropriate relief; whether the declaration of invalidity should be suspended with or without an interim reading-in and whether it should apply prospectively or retrospectively. The third relates to the question of costs in this Court. Parties [5] The eight applicants are adult males and females who all allege that they were sexually assaulted by Mr Frankel when they were children. [6] The first respondent is the Estate which substituted Mr Frankel after his death in April 2017, before the hearing in the High Court. The second respondent is the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services (Minister). [7] The fourth to sixth respondents are the WLC, Teddy Bear Clinic (TBC), and Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR). These respondents were amici in the High Court. Background and litigation history [8] During the period between 1970 and 1989, when the applicants were aged between 6 and 15 years old, Mr Frankel is alleged to have sexually assaulted them. As a result of the alleged sexual assaults, the applicants claim to have suffered physical, emotional, and psychological trauma. The effect of a 20-year prescription period imposed by section 18, for all sexual offences other than rape or compelled rape meant that the right to prosecute Mr Frankel for the sexual assaults he allegedly perpetrated against the applicants prescribed between 1998 and 2011. The applicants allege that they did not institute criminal proceedings against Mr Frankel within the period prescribed by section 18 because of lack of full appreciation of the nature and extent of the criminal acts allegedly perpetrated on them by him. They say they acquired full 5