33 [78] As I have already indicated, although the High Court granted the appellant leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, counsel for the appellant did not persist with the appeal against sentence before us. The sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year imposed by the regional magistrate, and confirmed by the High Court, in respect of each of the first four convictions therefore stands. [79] It appears from the record that the appellant has been in prison since 3 December 2003, as he was not granted bail pending his trial or pending his appeals. On 8 July 2005, the regional court sentenced him to an effective period of 11 years’ imprisonment. Thereafter, on 21 November 2006, the appellant’s effective sentence was reduced by the High Court to seven years’ imprisonment. This means that, at the time we heard this appeal, the appellant had served more than two years and seven months of his seven year sentence. If the Constitutional Court confirms the order of constitutional invalidity to be made by this Court, then the appellant’s convictions on the last six counts will be set aside and only the sentences imposed in respect of the first four counts (four years in total) will stand. This being so, this is an appropriate case in which we should exercise our power in terms of s 172(2)(b) of the Constitution by granting temporary relief to the appellant, pending the decision of the Constitutional Court. It would seem that the best way to do this would be to make an order suspending the sentence imposed on the appellant in respect of counts 6 to 11 until such time as the Constitutional Court has decided whether or not to confirm our orders of constitutional invalidity. The effect of this is that, pending the decision by the Constitutional Court in this regard, the appellant’s effective sentence must be regarded for all relevant purposes as being four years’ imprisonment. Order [80] In the circumstances, the following order is made: 1.1 It is declared that, with effect from 27 April 1994, ss 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 are inconsistent with the Constitution and hence invalid to the extent that these sections differentiate between heterosexual and same-