c. the nature and extent of the limitation; d. the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and freedoms by any person does not prejudice the rights and freedoms of others; e. the relationship between the limitation and its purpose, in particular whether it imposes greater restrictions on the right or freedom concerned than are necessary to achieve its purpose; and f. whether there are any less restrictive means of achieving the purpose of the limitation. […]” (Our emphasis) The limitation of the protection given to a young person under the age of 16 years in section 70(3) of the Criminal Code must thus be weighed against the above provision. The question is whether an application of the limitation created by the statutory defence in section 70(3) of the Criminal Code is “reasonable” and whether it detracts from the essential protection afforded to a minor by the provision. One would have to identify constitutional provisions that may be infringed by such a limitation, while bearing in mind that the defence is not an automatic one, but is simply available to the accused, and the onus is on the accused to prove his defence on a balance of probabilities. There has not been, to our knowledge, a case in any jurisdiction in which the constitutionality of the statutory defence to defilement or statutory rape provisions has been challenged based on the grounds of constitutionality. 12. THE CHILDREN’S AMENDMENT BILL OF 2017 AND THE EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL OF 2019 Insofar as legal reform is concerned, the proposed Children’s Amendment Bill of 2017 and the Education Amendment Bill of 2019 provide a vital opportunity. With the Children’s Amendment Bill, three provisions are of particular importance to the present discussion. The first provision relates to protection of children from sexual grooming. Clause 8 of the Amendment Bill makes it an offence to allow a child to participate in sexual grooming, through among other things exposure to pornography. The Act defines a child as a person who is below the age of 18 years. The principal Act currently defines a child as anyone below the age of 16 years, and a “young person” as any person who has attained the age of 16 years but has not attained the age of 18 years. The proposed amendment will do away with the category known as “young persons”, and this will mean that all children below the age of 18 years are protected, including those who may willingly participate in a sexual act, but are exposed to pornography before or after the act. The exposure to pornography will not affect the application of sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 70 of the Criminal Code, but will itself constitute a separate offence in terms of the amended Children’s Act. 31