Oscar Pistorius Trial

[Penna]

I followed the origial trial very closely and was impressed by the SA justice system. Having said that, the new ruling makes a point which now seems very obvious. It doesn't matter if Pistorius thought it was an intruder behind the door - he wasn't under any immediate threat to his life, and whether it was his gf or a stranger behind the door is not the issue. That seemed to have been lost in the emotion of the original trial.

Now the appeal judge has pointed that out, the new verdict makes perfect sense. If Pistorius had really thought it was an intruder, he could have simply gone back to his bedroom, woken his gf and left the flat, whilst ringing the police.

 

[Damien]

I thought that point was made quite clear in the original trial. Original ruling was ridiculous though I think the testimony about his paranoia helped his cause

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

I followed the origial trial very closely and was impressed by the SA justice system. Having said that, the new ruling makes a point which now seems very obvious. It doesn't matter if Pistorius thought it was an intruder behind the door - he wasn't under any immediate threat to his life, and whether it was his gf or a stranger behind the door is not the issue. That seemed to have been lost in the emotion of the original trial.

Now the appeal judge has pointed that out, the new verdict makes perfect sense. If Pistorius had really thought it was an intruder, he could have simply gone back to his bedroom, woken his gf and left the flat, whilst ringing the police.

Again though if you are a citizen of South Africa then on one hand you might be happy with the idea that finally Pistorius got the actual punishment he deserved but you also have to be worried that if the judge can make a grave mistake in such a high profile case then can you imagine the kind of stuff that must be happening in day to day court.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

I thought that point was made quite clear in the original trial. Original ruling was ridiculous though I think the testimony about his paranoia helped his cause

Indeed. It was given a fair deal of focus in the original trial. Maybe not necessarily the judgment but the prosecution focused on it if I'm not mistaken. From a non legal perspective and as someone who followed the original trail very closely, this seems the logical verdict to me. The defence simply had way too many holes in it to seem plausible.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Again though if you are a citizen of South Africa then on one hand you might be happy with the idea that finally Pistorius got the actual punishment he deserved but you also have to be worried that if the judge can make a grave mistake in such a high profile case then can you imagine the kind of stuff that must be happening in day to day court.

To be fair, incorrect judgments are pretty much part of any legal process which is why an appellate process and a strong one at that is just as important. It could just as easily be seen as a victory for the strength and autonomy of the appellate process.

 

[Stretch]

Agree with your posts in this thread. Understand that SA uses a different law system but the burden of a retrial should fall on the shoulders of the prosecution, not the defense.

Shouldn't that just be the case if it was a prosecution bungle that got you a heavier conviction that what you should have?

 

[Stretch]

Again though if you are a citizen of South Africa then on one hand you might be happy with the idea that finally Pistorius got the actual punishment he deserved but you also have to be worried that if the judge can make a grave mistake in such a high profile case then can you imagine the kind of stuff that must be happening in day to day court.

No. Mistakes in law are made all the time, all over the world which is why there is an appeal system, in pretty much any legal system in the world in the first place. The trial judge actually handled the trial very well considering the media spotlight but unfortunately erred in her analysis of the dolus eventualis concept. The appeals court pointed out these errors and thus were able to then reapply the facts of the original and arrive at the correct verdict, murder through dolus eventualis.

 

[Ayush_reddevil]

No. Mistakes in law are made all the time, all over the world which is why there is an appeal system, in pretty much any legal system in the world in the first place. The trial judge actually handled the trial very well considering the media spotlight but unfortunately erred in her analysis of the dolus eventualis concept. The appeals court pointed out these errors and thus were able to then reapply the facts of the original and arrive at the correct verdict, murder through dolus eventualis.

I get your point but for me an appeal is more for a wrong conviction or a wrong non conviction. As a complete outsider to the South African system I just find it really bizarre that a judge appointed to such a high profile case made such a grave error on the original judgment, if the concept is so simple as per your law that it was completely irrelevant who the person behind the door was then I have no idea how that error could have been made .This was a high profile case with full media coverage but it makes me think that there must be lots of decisions like this and who knows how many of them are even appealed against.

 

[Stretch]

Just something I'd like to clear up as there seemed to be some confusion around this. The process of reaching a judgment in a trial court in SA is as follows:

Trial court:
1. Have trial where all evidence and witnesses are presented
2. Determine which evidence and witness is reliable and record on official record
3. Build set of facts from the accepted official evidence and witnesses
4. Apply the law to the established set of facts, this means apply correct tests and ask correct questions to the set of facts
5. Arrive at conclusions based on tests and questions applied to the accepted facts
6. Give verdict
7. Give sentence after hearing aggravation and mitigation arguments

Now if the defense feels that the trial was unfair, that the judgment was incorrect, or for example that the prosecution jeopardised the trial etc etc then the defense can do the following:

Appeal court if defence appeals:
1. Apply for leave to appeal to trial court
2. If leave to appeal is granted, then go to appeal court
3. Defence is allowed to introduce new evidence, and have original established facts (point 1 to 3 in trial court list above) re-looked at
4. If appeal is won, all legal costs would be carried by the state
5. If appeal not won, all defence legal costs to be carried by defence

Now if the prosecution (or 'the State' as we call it) feels that the judgment was incorrect, they can appeal but only on grounds of law not being applied correctly. They cannot appeal the established facts (points 1 to 3 in trial court list above). The can appeal point 4 in the trial court list though.

Appeal court if prosecution appeals:
1. Apply for leave to appeal to trial court
2. If leave to appeal is granted, then go to appeal court
3. Prosecution is NOT allowed to introduce any NEW evidence nor revise existing set of facts. This is to avoid 'double jeopardy' among other things
4. Defence is allowed to contest the appeal of the prosecution but at own cost
5. However, should the prosecutions appeal be unsuccessful they would usually have to cover the legal costs of the defence

In light of the above, I think @Zarlak and @adexkola might rethink their stance on this. In my opinion there is nothing 'unfair' about this process nor 'unjust'

 

[Stretch]

I get your point but for me an appeal is more for a wrong conviction or a wrong non conviction. As a complete outsider to the South African system I just find it really bizarre that a judge appointed to such a high profile case made such a grave error on the original judgment, if the concept is so simple as per your law that it was completely irrelevant who the person behind the door was then I have no idea how that error could have been made .This was a high profile case with full media coverage but it makes me think that there must be lots of decisions like this and who knows how many of them are even appealed against.

Well that's quite easy to understand in SA when you are aware that there have been similar cases to this one in the past and the PRECEDENT seemed to be to apply culpable homicide. Thus there was some confusion around the concept of dolus eventualis and error in objecto (mistaken identity). That is why yesterday's ruling was not just about Oscar but actually about our Appeals Court with a full bench of senior judges finally clarifying the concept clearly so that there can be no 'grey' areas left.

The mistake the trial court made was that they thought the dolus eventualis couldn't apply to Oscar's case since he was convinced the deceased was in her room. The problem with that was that it was irrelevant of who was behind the door since that 'intruder' posed no danger to him. The trial court judge acknowledged he acted unlawfully but didn't deal the the dolus (legal intention) part correctly. She found Oscar didn't have the legal intent to kill Reeva (which was the correct finding based on established facts) but failed to deal with if Oscar had legal intent to kill whomever was behind the door. The fact that it turned to be Reeva in the end is thus irrelevant.

 

[adexkola]

Just something I'd like to clear up as there seemed to be some confusion around this. The process of reaching a judgment in a trial court in SA is as follows:

Trial court:
1. Have trial where all evidence and witnesses are presented
2. Determine which evidence and witness is reliable and record on official record
3. Build set of facts from the accepted official evidence and witnesses
4. Apply the law to the established set of facts, this means apply correct tests and ask correct questions to the set of facts
5. Arrive at conclusions based on tests and questions applied to the accepted facts
6. Give verdict
7. Give sentence after hearing aggravation and mitigation arguments

Now if the defense feels that the trial was unfair, that the judgment was incorrect, or for example that the prosecution jeopardised the trial etc etc then the defense can do the following:

Appeal court if defence appeals:
1. Apply for leave to appeal to trial court
2. If leave to appeal is granted, then go to appeal court
3. Defence is allowed to introduce new evidence, and have original established facts (point 1 to 3 in trial court list above) re-looked at
4. If appeal is won, all legal costs would be carried by the state
5. If appeal not won, all defence legal costs to be carried by defence

Now if the prosecution (or 'the State' as we call it) feels that the judgment was incorrect, they can appeal but only on grounds of law not being applied correctly. They cannot appeal the established facts (points 1 to 3 in trial court list above). The can appeal point 4 in the trial court list though.

Appeal court if prosecution appeals:
1. Apply for leave to appeal to trial court
2. If leave to appeal is granted, then go to appeal court
3. Prosecution is NOT allowed to introduce any NEW evidence nor revise existing set of facts. This is to avoid 'double jeopardy' among other things
4. Defence is allowed to contest the appeal of the prosecution but at own cost
5. However, should the prosecutions appeal be unsuccessful they would usually have to cover the legal costs of the defence

In light of the above, I think @Zarlak and @adexkola might rethink their stance on this. In my opinion there is nothing 'unfair' about this process nor 'unjust'

Makes a lot more sense. So it pretty much takes the defense back to the decision of whether to pursue a traditional appeal of the verdict (now deemed guilty) or not, which would obviously cost them financially. Thanks Stretch. Are prosecution appeals like this common in SA? I can't recall hearing of prosecution appeals here in the states at the same judicial level, may take a quick dive into Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to see if avenues like this are available.

 

[K2K]

Media reports that an arrest warrant has been issued by the NPA, and it looks like he may be sentenced while in prison, unless he gets bail.

 

[Damien]

Media reports that an arrest warrant has been issued by the NPA, and it looks like he may be sentenced while in prison, unless he gets bail.

“No arrest warrant has been issued,” NPA spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku told AFP on Friday, dismissing local media reports.

“We are facilitating the process so he can appear in court urgently.” Pistorius, 29, is under house arrest in Pretoria after serving one year of his five-year prison sentence for culpable homicide.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...k=a19e8c73c057aa176100c02fe7874f68-1449257786

 

[K2K]

“No arrest warrant has been issued,” NPA spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku told AFP on Friday, dismissing local media reports.

“We are facilitating the process so he can appear in court urgently.” Pistorius, 29, is under house arrest in Pretoria after serving one year of his five-year prison sentence for culpable homicide.

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au...k=a19e8c73c057aa176100c02fe7874f68-1449257786

Read the same wrong reports then. But there does seem to be a lot of urgency in getting this done.

Thanks

 

[Neutral]

Read the same wrong reports then. But there does seem to be a lot of urgency in getting this done.

Thanks

you didn't read the wrong reports...a lot of places reported it (obviously based on incorrect information). I saw at least 3 tweets from different places stating an arrest warrant had been issued.

 

[K2K]

you didn't read the wrong reports...a lot of places reported it (obviously based on incorrect information). I saw at least 3 tweets from different places stating an arrest warrant had been issued.

Yes, thats more appropriate. It does seem something has happened, and thats what has driven the reports.

 

[pauldyson1uk]

According to eNCA televison, an arrest warrant has been issued by the National Prosecuting Authority but it only plans to enforce it next week.

Next WEEK !!!! Why has he not been arrested already and lock up ?

 

[Penna]

Just want to say thanks to @Stretch for his very informative and comprehensive contributions to this thread.

 

[Stretch]

Just want to say thanks to @Stretch for his very informative and comprehensive contributions to this thread.

Only a pleasure. This trial certainly had me hooked.

 

[JustAFan]

Again though if you are a citizen of South Africa then on one hand you might be happy with the idea that finally Pistorius got the actual punishment he deserved but you also have to be worried that if the judge can make a grave mistake in such a high profile case then can you imagine the kind of stuff that must be happening in day to day court.

People are imperfect aren't they.

 

[Penna]

The latest is that Pistorius has been granted (electronically-tagged) bail until sentencing, which won't be till April next year. He intends to appeal to the Constitutional Court - I can't see how he could possibly have a case there.

He's free to move about in a 20km radius of his house during the mornings and bail was set at a very low level - approx £500. Quite astonishing, really. Would any other convicted murderer be allowed such leniency?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/dec/08/oscar-pistorius-bail-hearing-returned-to-jail-live

 

[K2K]

Leave to appeal conviction denied by Constitutional court(which is the highest court)

Now, its on to sentencing.

 

[itso 7]

Leave to appeal conviction denied by Constitutional court(which is the highest court)

Now, its on to sentencing.

Yea read that too, justice finally!

 

[Sassy Colin]

Is this cnut still at large?

 

[Cheesy]

Is this cnut still at large?

His appeal has been denied, thankfully.

For someone who was apparently so remorseful as to what he did, he's fair dragged it out.

 

[Neutral]

of course his leave to appeal was going to be denied....he didn't have a leg to stand on

 

[dannyrhinos89]

Good lets hope the judge throws away the key, let him rot.

 

[Rednotdead]

Good lets hope the judge throws away the key, let him rot.

She probably won't, after all she's the one who got it totally wrong in the first place. I bet the sentence is on the lenient side.

 

[Damien]

She probably won't, after all she's the one who got it totally wrong in the first place. I bet the sentence is on the lenient side.

Yep, I agree.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Yep, I agree.

Have you been thinking about your response since 4 March?

 

[Damien]

Have you been thinking about your response since 4 March?

No, just heard that Masipa was doing the sentencing on SSN today so looked for this thread.

 

[SteveJ]

Oscar Pistorius attacked Reeva Steenkamp with an air rifle and cricket bat before shooting her dead, forensic experts claim:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bat-shooting-dead-forensic-experts-claim.html

 

[dannyrhinos89]

Anything less than Max sentence is a disgrace for this cold blooded killer.

Let's hope the pathetic judge Uses commonsense and awards the proper punishment. It must be hell for her parents

 

[Nobby style]

Oscar showing his vulnerability in the courtroom, begging for leniency.

 

[dannyrhinos89]

If anyone watches american dad on here that pic above reminds me of this episode

 

[Pexbo]

He's shorter than I thought he was.

 

[Rado_N]

feck him, are we meant to forgive disabled people for murder now?

 

[Damien]

Oscar showing his vulnerability in the courtroom, begging for leniency.

After the joke of a verdict and sentence Masipa handed down first time I don't think he has much to worry about.

 

[Tommy]

Oscar showing his vulnerability in the courtroom, begging for leniency.

An absolute tosser of a man, but damn, he can walk like that? That's pretty impressive.

 

[Hernandez - BFA]

I was annoyed by this as well, but it said in the same BBC article that he was ASKED to take off his prosthetics.