6 penalty clause. Accordingly, if the judgment of the court below is correct, the Act will be rendered largely ineffective, because, in terms of that judgment, the absence of specified penalties means that it will have failed in one of its purposes, that of creating criminal offences. That has serious implications for the ability to prosecute those who have committed sexual offences since the Act came into operation on 16 December 2007 and have not yet been prosecuted. They could at most be prosecuted for lesser common law offences and perhaps not prosecuted at all. It could also potentially affect the validity of convictions and sentences under the Act since that date. All this was spelled out in an affidavit by the appellant that was admitted by consent at the commencement of the appeal. The statistics provided by the South African Police Service to the Women’s Legal Centre, and referred to in footnote 3, show the potential scale of the problem. [5] The judgment by the Western Cape High Court is in conflict with three other judgments, one in the Free State, 5 one in KwaZulu-Natal,6 and one in South Gauteng,7 and it is imperative that there be clarity. The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, under whose portfolio this legislation falls, was granted leave at the outset of the hearing to intervene and advance contentions in support of the validity of the legislation. The Centre for Child Law and the Women’s Legal Centre Trust applied to be admitted as amici curiae and those applications were also granted. They too contended that the legislation was effective to enable the prosecution of the various offences provided therein. Their arguments were largely based on a desire to ensure that the court gives due weight to the constitutional rights of women and children. 5 S v Booi (14/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 91 (12 August 2010). 6 S v Mchunu (168/2011) 15 September 2011 7 S v Rikhotso (SS105/11) [2012] ZAGPJHC 106.