21 charge.35 Whether it may, in some circumstances, impinge on an accused person’s fair trial rights in another way does not arise in this case. Before us, counsel for Mr Prins accepted that his fair trial rights were not in issue. [25] There is much to be said for the proposition that the issue, that Mr Prins was seeking to raise by his objection, only properly arises at the end of a case where an accused has been convicted and the issue of sentence comes to the fore. However, now that it is before us, it is undesirable not to deal with it knowing that it will otherwise return to this court in the near future. However, if the argument on his behalf is upheld, attention will need to be given to the appropriate form of relief. On the charge as formulated, he could plead guilty to, or be found guilty of, assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm or common assault, 36 and there is no question about the entitlement of the regional court before which he has been arraigned to sentence him for those offences. Accordingly, even if his contentions are correct it does not necessarily follow that the charge should be quashed. A legal basis for sentencing offenders under the Act [26] I turn then to deal with the first question, namely, whether there is any provision of the common law, or of a statute, that provides for the imposition of sentence on a person convicted of an offence under the Act, for which no penalty is expressly stipulated and which does not fall within the minimum sentencing legislation. The debate before us revolved around this question and in particular the state’s reliance on s 276 of the CPA. It is appropriate to note that this argument was not raised before the high court (and presumably before the magistrate). Had 35 S v Badenhorst 1991 (1) SACR 623 (T). 36 Section 261 (a) and (b) of the CPA.