ZONDI AJ which may be more accepting of women who are sexually abused. She may have a supportive partner later on in life who believes her and supports and encourages her to report to the police. Someone else may report a sexual offence committed by the same perpetrator which may give the survivor courage to report. [54] It is apparent that section 18 is out of touch with the development regarding the application of prescription in relation to sexual offences, which has taken place since the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Van Zijl35 and as developed by this Court in Bothma.36 The Supreme Court of Appeal in Van Zijl held that the purpose of prescription is to penalise unreasonable inaction, and not inability to act.37 This Court in Bothma appreciated the positive development that has taken place in the past two decades regarding the willingness of the survivors of sexual assault to come forward about their past.38 In these days survivors of sexual assault feel empowered to come to grips with and denounce sexual abuse they had suffered as children.39 They have become more informed about their condition and rights and have received support from public interest groups. There is healing power in groups. The survivors find solace in each other‘s words; they feel more empowered to bare their souls and relate their painful experiences. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Van Zijl accepted that rape had the inherent effect of rendering child survivors unable to report the crime, sometimes for several decades, and that the policy was not to penalise them for the consequences of their abuse by blaming them for the delay.40 What was said by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Van Zijl and by this Court in Bothma applies with equal force to survivors of all forms of sexual violence though it was made in the context of rape. The effect of section 18 is that it penalises even a complainant whose delay was caused by or due to his or her inability to act by preventing him or her from pursuing a charge even if he or 35 Van Zijl v Hoogenhout [2004] ZASCA 84; [2004] 4 All SA 427. 36 Bothma above n 15. 37 Van Zijl above n 35 at para 19. 38 Bothma above n 15 at para 50. 39 Id at para 48. 40 Van Zijl above n 35 at paras 7 and 9. 23