5 exonerate and immunise from prosecution acts that violated these interests.’ If the judgment of the high court in this case is correct, then its consequence is to ‘exonerate and immunise from prosecution acts that violate’ the interests of vulnerable children, women and men who have been subjected to sexual abuse. In order to determine whether that is so it is necessary to set out the circumstances in which the issue arises. Background to the appeal [3] Mr Arnold Prins was charged, before the regional court at Riversdale, with contravening s 5(1) of the Act in that he sexually assaulted the complainant by touching her breasts and private parts without her consent. Prior to his being called upon to plead, he objected to the charge sheet in terms of s 85 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. His objection was based on the fact that neither s 5(1) itself, nor any other provision of the Act, provides for a penalty for the offence created by s 5(1). The magistrate upheld the objection, apparently on the basis that the absence of a penalty infringed Mr Prins’ fair trial rights in terms of the Constitution, although his reasons are not entirely clear. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape appealed to the Western Cape High Court against that decision. That court (per Blignault J, Fortuin J and Mantame AJ concurring), concluded that, in the absence of a penalty in the Act, the charge failed to disclose an offence and dismissed the appeal. This further appeal is with the leave of the high court. [4] The appeal has been heard urgently by this court in view of its implications for all prosecutions arising under the various provisions of the Act. None of the 24 sections describing sexual offences in chapters 2, 3 and 4 of the Act prescribes a penalty, nor does the Act contain a general