SKWEYIYA J The delay occasioned by the consideration of the irrelevant constitutional issues is clear and was acknowledged by the High Court in its judgment of 24 October 2008, confirming the conviction of Mr Mokoena: “When the court raised the constitutional issues set out above, the process of obtaining submissions, hearing argument, preparing judgment and referring the same to the Honourable Constitutional Court for confirmation caused further delays.” (My emphasis.)28 [239] Later in the judgment, the High Court states: “It is clearly in the best interests of the victim that her moment of closure is not delayed any longer than is absolutely necessary.”29 However, the delay caused by taking submissions and hearing argument on irrelevant constitutional issues was wholly unnecessary in the first place. [240] The interests of the complainant in the Phaswane case have been equally jeopardised. In its judgment of 24 October 2008, the High Court said: “The court sought, with the consent of the State and the defence, to ameliorate the negative effect of these further delays by releasing [Mr Mokoena] and Mr Phaswane on warning… While the accused duly attended subsequent trial dates, Mr Phaswane left the country for his native Mozambique…”30 [241] Mr Phaswane appears to have absconded. Any closure that the complainant in that case may have gained from his conviction has been lost. The delay occasioned by the suspension of the criminal proceedings undoubtedly aggravates the stress already 28 S v A Mokoena and A Phaswane Case No CC7/07, the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, 24 October 2008, unreported at p 16. 29 Id at p 19. 30 Id at p 16. 120