Oscar Pistorius, the Paralympian who shot dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp thinking she was a burglar, could be convicted of murder within weeks if South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal decides he should have known his actions would kill.
Advertisement
The runner is now under house arrest at his uncle’s luxurious home in Pretoria after serving less than a year in prison for killing his girlfriend on Valentine’s Day 2013.
Asking the Supreme Court judges to upgrade Pistorius’ conviction to murder, Nel said that Judge Thokozile Masipa didn’t correctly apply the law at the culmination of Pistorius’ dramatic seven-month trial.
The prosecution argued that Pistorius should have foreseen that by firing four shots through a locked door into a toilet cubicle, the person behind the door would have been killed. Nel also said Masipa ignored or simply paid “lip service” to a few circumstantial evidence against Pistorius.
Ms Steenkamp’s mother June, who last week said she did not want retribution (above), attended the session in Bloemfontein, 250 miles southwest of Johannesburg, but did not make a statement. They could either sentence the athlete themselves or send him back to the high court where he would face a minimum 15 years’ jail for murder. There was no intention to act unlawfully, Roux argued.
However, on October 20, South Africa’s department of correctional services released him from jail and placed him under correctional supervision.
But she was seen smiling and chatting to State prosecutor Gerrie Nel and members of the ANC Women’s League.
A key element is that Pistorius fired four bullets, not one.
A panel of five judges will hear the arguments from the state and defence, with the proceedings scheduled to last one day.
Pistorius’ action was lawful, and he genuinely believed that he was shooting at an intruder, Mr Roux said.
Leach, responding to Roux’s comment that Masipa had found there was no intent in the form of dolus eventualis when Pistorius shot through the toilet door as he did not think Steenkamp was in the bathroom, said her [Masipa’s] analysis of the dolus eventualis principle seemed “wrong”.
Legal experts said it was hard to predict the outcome of the appeal given the unexpected – and sometimes unprecedented – legal twists and turns that have characterised the high-profile case.
“What we have to know is he did shoot in circumstances when he had foresight… that would be the end of the matter”, Nel said.
Advertisement
The ruling will be based on a majority decision among the five judges, several of whom argued on Tuesday that the bench was indeed entitled to impose its own verdict rather than simply ordering a retrial if it accepts the state’s case.
