26 means which are realistically available in our country at this stage, but without losing sight of the ultimate values to be protected” (S v Manamela and Another (Director-General of Justice intervening) 2000 (3) SA 1 (CC) quoted with approval in Minister of Home Affairs v Nicro and Others 2005 (3) SA 280 (CC) para [33]) [76] In a justification analysis facts and policy are often intertwined. A legislative choice is not always subject to courtroom fact-finding and may be based on reasonable inferences unsupported by empirical data. If the [policy] concerns are of sufficient importance, the risks associated with them sufficiently high, and there is sufficient connection between means and ends, that may be enough to justify action taken to address them. “Where justification depends on factual material, the party relying on justification must establish the facts on which the justification depends. Justification may, however, depend not on disputed facts but on policies directed to legitimate government concerns. If that be the case, the party relying on justification should place sufficient information before the Court as to the policy that is being furthered, the reasons for that policy and why it is considered reasonable in pursuit of that policy to limit a constitutional right. That is important, for if this is not done the Court may be unable to discern what the policy is, and the party making the constitutional challenge does not have the opportunity of rebutting the contention through countervailing factual material or expert opinion. A failure to place such information before the Court, or to spell out the reasons for the limitation, may be fatal to the justification claim. There may, however, be cases where, despite the absence of such information on the record, a court is nonetheless able to uphold a claim of justification based on common sense and judicial knowledge”. (Para [35] of Nicro)