that case, a 15-year-old boy who was in Form 3 fell in love with a 14-year-old form 1 girl at a secondary school which they both attended. They had consensual sexual intercourse on many occasions. The matter came to light when the girl fell pregnant. The boy was then charged and convicted on his own plea of guilty of contravening section 70(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Code. He was sentenced to receive a moderate corporal punishment of 3 cuts with a rattan cane. The sentence was duly carried out even before the record was submitted on review. The judge asked the trial magistrate whether the conviction was competent at law, and the magistrate’s response was: “After going through the relevant section and other literature, I concede that I erred in convicting the accused person who is also a minor.” The judge then remarked that in his discussions with other judges, it appeared that there were many such cases that were coming on review. Accordingly, he wrote to the AttorneyGeneral seeking his opinion on the matter, and the Attorney-General’s response was reproduced in full in the judgment as follows: “The probation officer’s report, which forms part of the record had the following findings and recommendations: ‘Both juveniles will benefit from pre-marital sex counselling as they are both victims of it. Taking the girl to live with the boy would not yield fruitful results as they are both children who still need parental guidance to grow up physically and emotionally. In view of the above highlights, it is respectively recommended that the charges be dropped and the juvenile continue in school, [which] will guarantee a brighter future to and better control of the juvenile’. Notwithstanding the probation officer’s recommendations, both the trial prosecutor and the presiding magistrate seem not to have paid any due regard to the probation officer’s report. Be that as it may we have noted that s 61 of the Act defines ‘young person’ as ‘a boy or girl under the age of sixteen years.’ The offence in s 70 of the Act seeks to protect young persons from adults who take advantage of their immaturity by engaging with them in extra marital sexual activities. It is envisaged that young persons are not mature enough to appreciate the consequences of such activities. That is why the probationer officer remarked that both the boy and girl were victims of pre-marital sex. It is clear from the wording of the legislation that not only girls are protected but young male persons are protected as well. In short, no offence is created where a young male person engages a young female person in any consensual sexual act. See the remarks of NDOU J in S v Juvenile (RPS) HC 18/03 that: ‘Whilst it might be a bitter pill to swallow for parents, youngsters aged under sixteen can freely indulge in sexual activities outside criminal sanction of the Sexual Offences Act as long as the sexual act is consensual. This does not seem ideal in this era of HIV/AIDS. There is nothing criminal about accused’s conduct although morally and religiously reprehensible’. The facts in that case involved a 15-year-old boy who had sexual intercourse with a 15 year old girl. The conviction was set aside. The offence of having sexual intercourse with a young person under the Sexual Offences Act, now repealed, is the precursor to s 70 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Cap 9:23]. However, s 70 of the Act did not change the position pronounced by NDOU J, supra. 19