This matter began as a trial of assault with intent to do previous bodily harm. The father abused his 13 year old son for watching pornographic material. The violence acted upon the son also rook the form of vicious kicking and punching. Because of this, the father could not therefore rely on any religious of cultural background to justify the unreasonable application of force. He, unsurprisingly, was convicted of common assault. In addition to this, he also convicted on another assault charge against his wife for physical abuse. Angered by the outcome, the father appealed to this High court in which the application was denied.
The court also declared that the common law defense of reasonable and moderate parental chastisement is inconsistent with the provisions of sections 10 and 12(1(c) of the constitution. There were no orders as to costs.