purposes will be served by such an exemption.” As the Act thus did allow for researchers of child pornography to be exempted from prosecution
, the court concluded that the nature and extent of the limitation was not severe. It was thus reasonable and justifiable for the rights of researchers and film-makers in relation to possession and importation of child pornography to be limited by s 27(1), read with s 22 of the Act. The court furthermore found that s 27(1) constitutes a reasonable and justifiable limitation on the right to freedom of expression and that, since many of the resultant acts of abuse against children, such as downloading child pornography from the Internet, take place in private, and the reasonable risk of harm to children is thus likely to materialise in private, some intrusion by the law into the private domain was justified. The limitation of the right to privacy was consequently also justifiable and the applicant’s appeal was dismissed.