SKWEYIYA ADCJ High Court [6] The Full Bench6 held that section 50(2) of the Sexual Offences Act may violate the child offender‘s rights by requiring the particulars of a child offender to be included in the Register. The High Court went further, however, to hold that ―because of the consequences and impact of the inclusion of an offender‘s name in the Register, the rights of such offender . . . whether a child or an adult, would indeed be violated.‖7 [7] The High Court considered whether the infringement was justifiable under section 368 of the Constitution. It held that because the legitimate constitutional purpose of the Sexual Offences Act is to protect victims of sexual abuse, the limitation on the offender‘s rights by section 50(2) is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Regarding child offenders, the Court held that the best interests of the child, in terms of section 28(2)9 of the Constitution, may be limited. The High Court concluded that section 50(2) precludes a court from assessing if the child offender truly poses a threat to others and whether indeed the circumstances justify placing the child on the Register. This is because the Sexual Offences Act criminalises a broad array of conduct and because the presiding officer lacks discretion when making an order to place an offender‘s particulars on the Register. 6 J v S [2013] ZAWCHC 114; 2013 (2) SACR 599 (WCC). 7 Id at para 102. Emphasis added. 8 See [46] below for the relevant portions of section 36. 9 See [35] below for the full text of section 28(2). 6