Undoubtedly, it’s quite tough to reconcile the letter of the law following which the verdict in Oscar Pistorius’s trial was pronounced. But still, as we are invested with the judicial function in another part of the globe, we reckon that to some extent, we too have a few relevant words to share in the context of the present trend of critiquing the leaning judgement offered to Oscar Pistorius in the Reeva Steenkamp murder case.
For the last few months, the world spell-bindingly observed the trial of Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee celebrity athlete. This South African athlete with partial physical disability known as the “Blade Runner,” because of his prosthetic limbs, made history at the London 2012 Olympics when he became the first amputee sprinter to compete in the able-bodied Games, running in the 400m and 4x400m relay.
Beleaguered by camera crews, photographers and reporters from all over the world, the mass media-covered open trial at a Pretorian Court, Pistorius was charged with a premeditated-murder (offence with a penalty of 25 years in jail) for his partner’s alleged murder on February 14, 2013 and placed on trial in March 2014. In the early part of this September, he was found not guilty of murder, but the judge found him guilty of “culpable homicide” (the South African Penal Law version of “manslaughter”) for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp by mistake.
Steenkamp, who was a 29-year-old model and law graduate, died in a small toilet cubicle when Pistorius shot her four times through the locked door just after 3am on Valentine’s Day last year. The Court heard how his hollow tipped bullets opened and mushroomed on impact, tearing through her flesh and killing her almost instantly. He claims, he mistook her for an intruder, a version that the judge accepted.
The conviction of culpable homicide can bring a maximum imprisonment of 15 years, although legal experts pointed to five years as a guideline because unlike murder, the judge may use her discretion and suspend the sentence or only impose a fine. Additionally, he was also found guilty on a charge of negligently handling a firearm that went off in a restaurant.
Many legal actors believe that the athlete is getting off lightly, possibly because of his fame. However, legal experts argue that the judge has merely followed the law and the evidence available before her. The onus was on the state to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which the judge said it had failed to execute.
Following an extensive trial that has spell-bound people around the globe till date, Judge Masipa gave a detailed account before announcing her verdict. In judgement-pronouncing time Judge Thokozile Masipa said the athlete acted “negligently” when he fired shots through a toilet door, but in the “belief that there was an intruder.”
It was said by the court that the state had failed to prove that Pistorius intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp. The athlete, who became emotional after being described as an “evasive witness,” seemed to have been expecting this verdict. The judge had uttered Pistorius’s negligence and use of “excessive force” when he fired through the door. Finally for that session, the judge allowed Pistorius to remain on bail until the sentencing which is to take place on October 13.
South Africa’s National Prosecuting Administration (NPA) was found “disappointed” as they were not successful in securing a conviction on the original charge of “premeditated murder” against Pistorius. It was mentioned right after the verdict was pronounced that they would wait until the pronouncement of the sentence to decide whether to appeal against the incumbent verdict.
Many jurists around the world have questioned the presiding judge’s decision to acquit Pistorius of murder and argue that the prosecution has logical grounds to appeal against that leaning judgement.
The double amputee athlete had denied murdering Steenkamp after a row on Valentine’s Day last year, and admitted that he shot her by mistake. With this the judge agreed, saying “it cannot be said that the accused did not entertain a genuine belief that there was an intruder.” In course of the same trial he was acquitted of another charge of firing a gun in public, through the sunroof of a car, and of a charge of illegal possession of ammunition in the home where he killed Steenkamp.
Now, a query peeks in our judicial mind – can we appreciate the said verdict which seems to be an “unusual judicial pronouncement” based on some unfounded juridical findings?
Whether or not one thinks Oscar Pistorius got off lightly depends largely on where do we stand on the case in the first place. The verdict is certainly a “controversial” one not only in South African legal spheres, but also throughout other major legal systems. The parents of deceased victim Reeva Steenkamp, amid growing discontent throughout South Africa, expressed resentment and distrust later on after Oscar Pistorius was formally acquitted of their daughter’s murder, contending: “Justice was not served.”
Jacqui Mofokeng, a spokeswoman for the African National Congress Women’s League, who supported the Steenkamps’ side in trial court, said: “They are saddened by the verdict. It’s like they’re mourning Reeva again. Emotions are high. Some of the family members were crying when the verdict was given.” Therefore, we are listening many questions echoing about whether the judge applied the law appropriately.
The South African legal system allows for various kinds of murder convictions, and the one that’s important here is what is known as common-law murder with indirect intentions – or “dolus eventualis.”
According to the criminal law, someone is guilty of murder if s/he knows that her/his action could lead to the killing of a person and reconcile her/him to that fact, and act anyway. However, the judge seems to have cleared Oscar Pistorius of this charge because she felt that, to be guilty of common-law murder, Pistorius needed to have foreseen that his actions would kill a specific person (read Reeva Steenkamp for this case).
In articulating her ruling, judge Thokozile Masipa said that “a reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result,” which suggests a classic case of dolus eventualis, ie the common-law murder. The state tried to prove that Pistorius was aware that it was Steenkamp behind the toilet door but the judge accepted the defence’s claims that he thought it was an intruder.
The judge put a lot of weight on the genuine remorse Pistorius showed after the fact, saying there’s no way he could have faked that. What is perhaps more interesting is the question whether, even if he did think it was an intruder, he should be guilty of common-law murder in these circumstances – and many people believe he should.
We are in a position to say that the criminal law is clear in this context – it doesn’t have to be a specific person whose death can be foreseen, it can be anyone. This may be debatable; and many people have suggested that if Pistorius had killed Reeva in a heat of the moment, he would still be remorseful afterwards.
To us, an appeal against the said verdict should be preferred by the state after the formal delivery of sentencing mainly on the grounds that the law was misconstrued by the trial court. We suppose there are good prospects for the state to appeal on a point of law. There is every possibility that a superior court, after hearing and appreciating the same evidence, may come to an altered conclusion followed by imposing a stricter sentence or may reassess the verdict of culpable homicide and convict him of murder for ends of justice.