It is our respectful view that if a proper consideration and due regard had been given to the above cited case; prosecution would not have been warranted in the circumstances. Accordingly, the Attorney General is unable to support the conviction.” The court agreed with the observations and conclusions of the Attorney-General (now Prosecutor-General) and proceeded to quash the conviction and sentence imposed on the juvenile, and the Registrar was directed to bring this review judgment to the attention of both the Chief Magistrate and the Director of Public Prosecutions for distribution to both magistrates and prosecutors throughout the country. This decision is the locus classicus on the subject of a young person who has consensual sexual intercourse with another young person, where both are between 12 and 16 years of age. The decision was affirmed by two other judges of the High Court in the case of S v LC (A Juvenile) HH 34-14, before Justices Tagu and Tsanga, a case factually similar to that of S v CF (A Juvenile) HH 143-11. In S v LC (A Juvenile), the matter came on review on a question of whether a 15-year-old accused who was convicted of consensual sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl had been competently charged and convicted. The two children were in a relationship. The boy was charged and convicted on his own plea of guilty of contravening section 70(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. He was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment which was wholly suspended on condition that the accused performed 105 hours of community service. The court made reference to the earlier decisions of S v CF (A Juvenile) HH 143-11 by Kudya J as well as the case of S v Juvenile (RPS) HC 18-03 per Ndou J, where the position was articulated that prosecution would not have been warranted in a case such as this. Although the juvenile had already served out his sentence, the court quashed both the conviction and sentence imposed on the juvenile. This position taken by the courts was subsequently codified in a 2016 amendment to section 70 of the Criminal Code, with the insertion of section 70(2a) which states as follows: “(2a) Where extra-marital sexual intercourse or an indecent act occurs between young persons who are both over the age of twelve years but below the age of sixteen years at the time of the sexual intercourse or the indecent act, neither of them shall be charged with sexual intercourse or performing an indecent act with a young person except upon a report of a probation officer appointed in terms of the Children’s Act [Chapter 5:06] showing that it is appropriate to charge one of them with that crime.” The insertion provides a new dimension, which is that a probation officer may recommend prosecution for one of the young persons. Comparative perspectives: South Africa and Kenya South Africa is among the jurisdictions that used to criminalise consensual sexual intercourse among young people. However, reform was brought through a Constitutional 20