Of further concern is the issue of a quick preliminary. Both the Child Justice Act and the Criminal Procedure Act are prescriptive regarding conclusion of preliminary. Where the preliminary of a grown-up is irrationally postponed, the two-prong test set up in section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act is enacted. Conversely, notwithstanding, the Child Justice Act gives an immediate guideline in section 66(1) to forestall delays in the preliminary of a tyke and to guarantee that deferments are constrained in both number and span. Section 66(1) drives one to accept that the preliminary of a tyke will appreciate inclination on the court roll and that issues including a grown-up charged don’t. This approach is affirmed by the court in S v Mbokhani, where a youngster is a witness or complainant, and we assert that it would apply similarly where the tyke is the charged. In light of this arrangement it is subsequently sensible to express that a grown-up will get particular treatment and a speedier preliminary where attempted as a co-accused with a youngster. This circumstance is in guide differentiation to section 9 of the Constitution, which ensures balance under the steady gaze of the law.