MOKGORO J 2006 that Court confirmed his conviction but reduced his sentence. The applicant appealed further to the Supreme Court of Appeal against his conviction but not his sentence. [8] On 31 March 2008 the Supreme Court of Appeal, per Van Heerden JA, made an order, including: • declaring that subsections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and hence invalid to the extent that these sections differentiate between immoral and indecent activities between people of the opposite sex and people of the same sex by setting the legal age of consent at 16 years and 19 years respectively; • replacing “19 years” with “16 years” in subsections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Act in order to cure the constitutional defect; • ordering that the abovementioned changes to the Act shall not invalidate any conviction on the basis of the relevant subsections unless an appeal from or a review of the relevant judgment is pending, or the time for noting an appeal from that judgment has not expired, or condonation for the late noting of an appeal or late filing of an application for leave to appeal is granted by a court of competent jurisdiction;3 • dismissing the applicant’s appeal on the first four counts; 3 This part of the order is based on a similar order made by this Court in National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Justice and Others [1998] ZACC 15; 1999 (1) SA 6 (CC); 1998 (12) BCLR 1517 (CC) (National Coalition), in which the crime of sodomy was overturned. Its purpose is to allow convicted persons to challenge their convictions under the relevant subsections while creating minimal disruption to the justice system. 4