contexts on a number of occasions.[1]
[89]The above observations afford some indication of the complexities of deciding whether to limit the retrospectivity of the order and, if deciding to limit it, what order would be just and equitable. There are other difficulties, some of which were raised with counsel in argument. In the result the Court considered it advisable to invite both the applicants and the Minister to submit written argument on the most appropriate order required by the circumstances of this case. Such written arguments were duly delivered by these parties and we have considered them. It is necessary to deal with the various paragraphs of the High Court order separately.
The Order Invalidating the Common-law Crime of Sodomy
- ↑ Brink v Kitshoff NO 1996 (6) BCLR 752 (CC); 1996 (4) SA 197 (CC) at para 4–5; Parbhoo and Others v Getz NO and Another 1997 (10) BCLR 1337 (CC); 1997 (4) SA 1095 (CC) para at 5; Lawrence v the State and Another; Negal v the State and Another; Solberg v The State and Another 1997 (10) BCLR 1348 (CC); 1997 (4) SA 1176 (CC) at paras 14–16; S v Ntsele 1997 (11) BCLR 1543 (CC) at para 13; City Council of Pretoria v Walker 1998 (3) BCLR 257 (CC); 1998 (2) SA 363 (CC) at para 15; Mistry v Interim National Medical and Dental Council and Others 1998 (7) BCLR 880 (CC) at para 34.
