South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal Hears Arguments in Pistorius Murder Case

The supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from state prosecutors that trial judge Thokozile Masipa was wrong in her finding of Oscar Pistorius not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel argued that Masipa erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that Pistorius had foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it. The state also alleged that Masipa had excluded dolus eventualis because she accepted that Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, and that there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle.

The defense case, presented by Barry Roux, argued that the state's case rested on issues of fact, rather than points of law, and were therefore not a matter for the supreme court. However, Roux faced questioning from the judges over Pistorius' intentions when firing into the tiny cubicle, with Judge Leach telling him that it was "difficult to understand" how Pistorius could not have foreseen the harm that would come to Steenkamp.

Key Takeaways:

• The supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from state prosecutors that trial judge Thokozile Masipa was wrong in her finding of Oscar Pistorius not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
• Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel argued that Masipa erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that Pistorius had foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it.
• The state also alleged that Masipa had excluded dolus eventualis because she accepted that Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, and that there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle.
• Barry Roux, for the defense, argued that the state's case rested on issues of fact, rather than points of law, and were therefore not a matter for the supreme court.
• Judge Leach questioned Roux on Pistorius' intentions when firing into the tiny cubicle, stating that it was "difficult to understand" how Pistorius could not have foreseen the harm that would come to Steenkamp.
• The defense insists that Pistorius was scared, vulnerable, and on his stumps; his state of mind rules out murder.
• The case has significant implications for the South African justice system and the rights of victims and their families.

Statistics:

• There were four shots fired into the locked door of the toilet cubicle.
• The trial judge, Thokozile Masipa, found Pistorius not guilty of murder, but guilty of culpable homicide.
• The supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from both the state and the defense.
• The case has been ongoing for several years, with multiple appeals and retrials.
• Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June Steenkamp, was present in the courtroom during the hearing.

Sources:

• South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal
• Advocate Gerrie Nel's statement to the panel of five judges
• Barry Roux's argument for the defense
• Judge Leach's statement to Roux
• Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June Steenkamp's, presence in the courtroom
• Various news reports from the scene