ZONDI AJ [42] The origin of the statutory 20-year prescription period in section 18 can be traced back to the common law.27 In terms of the common law, all offences prescribed after a period of 20 years from the commission of the offence.28 The common law position existed until it was altered by section 21 of the Cape Ordinance,29 which provided that a prosecution for a crime of murder would not be barred as a result of a lapse of time. But the 20-year prescription period in relation to all other offences remained unchanged under the Criminal Procedure Act 31 of 1917 and the Criminal Procedure Act 56 of 1955 (the old CPA). [43] The CPA altered the position. It extended the crimes which would not be barred by the lapse of time to those ―in respect of which the sentence of death may be imposed‖. In its original form section 18(1) of the CPA provided: ―The right to institute a prosecution for any offence, other than an offence in respect of which the sentence of death may be imposed, shall, unless some other period is expressly provided by the law, lapse after the expiration of twenty years from the time when the offence was committed.‖ [44] It is apparent from the historical development of section 18 that the Legislature under the old CPA specifically identified murder as the crime in respect of which the right to prosecute would not prescribe. In the 1977 CPA the Legislature employed a different marker to delineate the crime or crimes in respect of which prescription would not bar a prosecution. The marker used is the reference to all offences ―other than the offences [in respect] of which the sentence [of death] may be imposed‖. The preceding statutory history shows us that when the Legislature enacted the CPA, it was aware of the fact that from time to time the list of offences in respect of which the death sentence was competent had changed and would in all probability change in the future. When Du Toit ―Prosecuting Authority‖ in Du Toit et al (eds) Commentary on Criminal Procedure Act Service 57 (2016) at 87 and see generally S v De Freitas 1997 (1) SACR 180 (C). 27 28 De Freitas id at 182I-J. 29 40 of 1828. 18