17 however, remember whether this person had also slept in the room. He denied that there had been any mutual masturbation between himself and the appellant that night. [39] As regards the third count, the appellant agreed that he had started to teach the complainant to drive at the latter’s request, and that the complainant had practised driving with him once or twice in the beginning of December 1997. This had taken place in the parking area of the Corpus Christi Church, as the complainant had testified. However, he and the complainant had never been alone on any such occasion; on the contrary, A and, as far as he could remember, also the complainant’s sister (H) had been with them and no mutual masturbation had taken place between him and the complainant in the car. The driving lessons could not have taken place in the period from January to April 1998 – as the complainant had testified – as he (the appellant) had resigned from Elwierda in early January 1998 and had immediately gone to his parental home in Warden, where he had stayed until November 1998. He had helped out at Elwierda on a free-lance basis from mid-September to late October 1998 and had certainly not visited the complainant’s family in October or November of that year. He testified that he could not therefore, have visited the complainant at the latter’s home during the complainant’s study ‘leave’ in October or November 1998 and indulged in mutual masturbation with the complainant in the complainant’s bedroom as the latter had testified. [40] The appellant testified that he had indeed taken the complainant and A to the Aardklop festival in Potchefstroom in September or early October 2001. They had spent a day at the festival and, on their return to Randfontein, the boys had spent the night at his apartment, sleeping in his spare room while he spent the night in his own bedroom. The appellant denied the complainant’s allegations that, during the period January to March 2001, he (the appellant) had engaged in sessions of mutual masturbation with the complainant or that he had anally penetrated the complainant on the diverse occasions testified to by the latter. Here again, in the light of my approach to the constitutional challenge and its impact upon the remaining unlawful acts allegedly perpetrated by the appellant after the complainant had turned 16, and my assessment of the veracity of the appellant’s version, it is not necessary to deal in any greater detail with rest of the appellant’s evidence.