A court found Pistorius guilty a year ago of shooting his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, dead through a locked toilet door on February 14, 2013.
Advertisement
“I think all I would say, is to explain to him what he’s taken away from her. Her life, her career, her wedding, her child, and that’s what he’s taken away”. The judge said the original court judgment was “fundamentally flawed”, and that it was “common sense” that Pistorius would know his shots would be potentially fatal.
The Supremes Court of Appeal decided Thursday that a lower court’s reading of that was faulty and overturned its manslaughter conviction against the athlete, convicting him of murder. But Judge Eric Leach issued the new murder charge, saying that no matter who was behind the door, Pistorius shot to kill.
Pistorius originally received a five-year sentence, and after spending one year in prison, he has been on house arrest since October.
After a lengthy trial, Pistorius was handed a five-year sentence for the previous conviction of culpable homicide, which is equivalent to manslaughter.
Pistorius will be re-sentenced at the High Court in Pretoria and faces a minimum of 15 years behind bars.
Pistorius was initially convicted of culpable homicide. “The identity of his victim is irrelevant to his guilt”.
Leach said that regardless of who Pistorius said he thought was behind the door, he should have known someone could be killed if he fired. The former track star is now under house arrest at his uncle’s mansion in Pretoria.
“Justice Leach said: ‘The argument appears to have been that in the circumstances that prevailed, the accused may well have fired without thinking of the consequences of his actions”.
“Let us now all get on with our lives”, Barry Steenkamp said.
So, essentially, Pistorius is going back to jail. “The fact that this court has determined that certain mistakes were made should not be seen as an adverse comment upon her competence and ability”.
Advertisement
However, it may not be the end for the Steenkamps as South African criminal lawyers pointed out that the athlete could appeal against the outcome of the case to South Africa’s Constitutional Court.
