MOGOENG CJ cultural ground to justify that unmistakably immoderate and unreasonable application of force. Unsurprisingly, he was convicted of common assault. I deliberately refrain from saying any more about the assault on the wife, except that it also led to a similar conviction. I do so because it bears no relevance to the defence of reasonable and moderate chastisement of a child. [6] Aggrieved by the outcome, the father lodged an appeal to the High Court. Although the State did not challenge the constitutional validity of the common law right of parents to chastise their children moderately and reasonably, the Court of its own accord decided the issue. It declared the defence to be constitutionally invalid and, therefore, prospectively unavailable to parents charged with the offence of assault (common or with the intent to do grievous bodily harm) upon their children. [7] The history and nature of parents’ legal authority to inflict reasonable and moderate corporal punishment upon their children deserves some attention. And I will borrow quite generously from Burchell and Milton,3 who did a brilliant job in capturing the essence of this subject. [8] The use of physical force upon a child as a means of corrective educational discipline is a long-established part of civilisation.4 In line with the social importance attributed to the family unit in all societies, the law has traditionally conceded to parents a uniquely independent authority in raising their children. For this reason, the State did not interfere in the exercise of the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents in the upbringing of their children.5 [9] Some parents reportedly abused their children under the guise of religion. They viewed childish misbehaviour or misconduct as a sign of demonic possession that required the use of more force or physical pain to deliver their children from evil spirits. 3 Burchell and Milton Principles of Criminal Law (Juta & Co Ltd, Cape Town 1991). 4 Id at 159. 5 Id at 160-1. 4