NGCOBO J [38] In deciding these constitutional cases, the High Court held that before a court can decide a constitutional issue, “it must be clear that the particular constitutional question must arise from the facts of the case.”29 The High Court also referred to the general principle that constitutional issues should not be decided prior to a decision on factual issues or matters of law with which have no constitutional implication, “unless the decision on the constitutional issue is necessary for a proper assessment of the non-constitutional issues at stake.”30 It took the view that “the constitutional matters [it had raised] needed to be decided before the questions of the correctness of the convictions could be addressed.”31 And concluded that “[t]hese are several aspects of the evidence given by the complainants and the manner in which such evidence was given, that needed to be addressed before a final decision on the correctness of the convictions could be pronounced.”32 In effect therefore the High Court found that the correctness or otherwise of the conviction could not be decided without first deciding the constitutional issues. In addition, it held that as the constitutional issues raised were of relevance to matters in which child complainants and child witnesses are 29 Above n 10 at para 19. 30 Id at para 24; See also De Kock NO and Others v Van Rooyen 2005 (1) SA 1 (SCA). 31 Above n 10 at para 25. 32 Id at para 26. The High Court identified these as: “(a) Whether evidence that was given in a fashion that might be regarded as unconstitutional should be received. (b) Whether the lengthy postponements had a telling effect upon the children's evidence. (c) Whether the conduct of the proceedings was constitutionally appropriate and, if not, what remedy there might be—i.e. should the matter be remitted to the regional magistrate with an instruction to re-hear the evidence of the complainant in the Phaswane matter through an intermediary? (d) If not, could the evidence pass muster if it was held that it was tainted by unconstitutionality?” 20