I think it would be a different verdict, Masipa denied the leave to appeal the existing sentence but if there is a different verdict .e.g Murder then a new sentence would follow.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Oscar Pistorius: The Appeal
- Thread starter MickeyD
- Start date
I think it would be a different verdict, Masipa denied the leave to appeal the existing sentence but if there is a different verdict .e.g Murder then a new sentence would follow.
Oscar appeal: Roux grilled in SCA
Jenna Etheridge, News24
Bloemfontein - Oscar Pistorius’s lawyer worked hard on Tuesday to convince the Supreme Court of Appeal that a trial court had not erred in analysing the intention behind the fatal shooting of Reeva Steenkamp.
Defence lawyer Barry Roux was grilled by Judge Eric Leach in a long exchange over the trial court’s application of dolus eventualis and whether the identity of the person behind the toilet door mattered.
Roux said his client had fired four shots through his toilet door on Valentine’s Day two years ago because he genuinely believed his life was in danger and wanted to defend himself.
He said Pretoria High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa had made a factual finding of this belief and looked at the Paralympian’s state of mind.
Leach, one of five judges, said he could still be found guilty of murder even if he had thought Steenkamp was in the bedroom at the time of the shooting.
“The issue was not then whether he knew Reeva was behind the door. The issue was that he knew a person was in the cubicle.”
He noted that Pistorius had not known whether a 12-year-old child or a gun-wielding attacker had been in the cubicle when he fired bullets.
“Was there anything that showed, apart from noise, that his life was in danger?” Leach asked.
Roux increasingly raised his voice, shuffled about and referred to bundles of notes.
He conceded that Masipa may have made "factual errors".
However, he refused to concede that her application of law had been wrong.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Roux-grilled-in-SCA-20151103
Jenna Etheridge, News24
Bloemfontein - Oscar Pistorius’s lawyer worked hard on Tuesday to convince the Supreme Court of Appeal that a trial court had not erred in analysing the intention behind the fatal shooting of Reeva Steenkamp.
Defence lawyer Barry Roux was grilled by Judge Eric Leach in a long exchange over the trial court’s application of dolus eventualis and whether the identity of the person behind the toilet door mattered.
Roux said his client had fired four shots through his toilet door on Valentine’s Day two years ago because he genuinely believed his life was in danger and wanted to defend himself.
He said Pretoria High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa had made a factual finding of this belief and looked at the Paralympian’s state of mind.
Leach, one of five judges, said he could still be found guilty of murder even if he had thought Steenkamp was in the bedroom at the time of the shooting.
“The issue was not then whether he knew Reeva was behind the door. The issue was that he knew a person was in the cubicle.”
He noted that Pistorius had not known whether a 12-year-old child or a gun-wielding attacker had been in the cubicle when he fired bullets.
“Was there anything that showed, apart from noise, that his life was in danger?” Leach asked.
Roux increasingly raised his voice, shuffled about and referred to bundles of notes.
He conceded that Masipa may have made "factual errors".
However, he refused to concede that her application of law had been wrong.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Roux-grilled-in-SCA-20151103
pinball wizard
Honorary Master
Sounds like it will be a new trial.
Oscar Pistorius appeal: Quotes of the day
Bloemfontein - Five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal heard arguments by the State to overturn Oscar Pistorius's conviction of culpable homicide for shooting dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Here is a compilation of quotes from the day:
"There's no place to hide." - Justice Eric Leach on the toilet cubicle
"If you put four shots through the door you must know that you will kill somebody." - Leach again
"...he genuinely believed she was in the bedroom." - Defence lawyer Barry Roux
"Did he [Pistorius] honestly believe he was entitled to shoot that person?" - Leach
"The question is why did he shoot?... there was a trigger element... Did he just go into the bathroom and fire shots because it is a practice time?" - Roux, arguing Pistorius was anxious
"Does a person with anxiety have a licence to shoot?" - Justice Elizabeth Baartman
"That's why he was convicted of culpable homicide." - Roux's reply
"Of course he should not have fired four shots." - Roux
"The court never went back to discuss the circumstantial evidence of what happened in the bedroom." - Prosecutor Gerrie Nel
"What we have to know is he did shoot in circumstances when he had foresight... that would be the end of the matter." - Nel
"What I find more troubling is how she [Judge Thokozile Masipa] dealt with [police ballistics expert Chris] Mangena’s evidence. You don’t understand how she gets to where she does in that she basically accepts what the accused says: if he wanted to kill, he would have shot higher. That is completely contradictory to his evidence." - Judge Steven Majiedt
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Quotes-of-the-day-20151103
Bloemfontein - Five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal heard arguments by the State to overturn Oscar Pistorius's conviction of culpable homicide for shooting dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
Here is a compilation of quotes from the day:
"There's no place to hide." - Justice Eric Leach on the toilet cubicle
"If you put four shots through the door you must know that you will kill somebody." - Leach again
"...he genuinely believed she was in the bedroom." - Defence lawyer Barry Roux
"Did he [Pistorius] honestly believe he was entitled to shoot that person?" - Leach
"The question is why did he shoot?... there was a trigger element... Did he just go into the bathroom and fire shots because it is a practice time?" - Roux, arguing Pistorius was anxious
"Does a person with anxiety have a licence to shoot?" - Justice Elizabeth Baartman
"That's why he was convicted of culpable homicide." - Roux's reply
"Of course he should not have fired four shots." - Roux
"The court never went back to discuss the circumstantial evidence of what happened in the bedroom." - Prosecutor Gerrie Nel
"What we have to know is he did shoot in circumstances when he had foresight... that would be the end of the matter." - Nel
"What I find more troubling is how she [Judge Thokozile Masipa] dealt with [police ballistics expert Chris] Mangena’s evidence. You don’t understand how she gets to where she does in that she basically accepts what the accused says: if he wanted to kill, he would have shot higher. That is completely contradictory to his evidence." - Judge Steven Majiedt
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Quotes-of-the-day-20151103
USZA
Executive Member
This would be the last option, and one that they want to avoid. Nel is gunning for a different verdict, which would necessitate a new sentence.
pinball wizard
Honorary Master
I get that, I just don't think it will go that way.
R13...
Honorary Master
A new trial is highly unlikely, the SCA has the power to convict and sentence him for murder if they find in the state's favour.
USZA
Executive Member
I listened to the trial, and there was a consensus on the bench that the SCA could impose it's own verdict. Also, both the defence and the prosecution have stated that they have no appetite for a retrial.
blunomore
Honorary Master
I presume he was not in court today?
R13...
Honorary Master
Only to the concourt if he can find a constitutional reason to do.
pinball wizard
Honorary Master
If they go that route, this will for sure end up at concourt.
USZA
Executive Member
Barry Roux is going to have to dig deep for that reason.
Mic should have been switched off - Nel
Jenna Etheridge, News24
Bloemfontein - State prosecutor Gerrie Nel said on Tuesday he could not comment on the context in which Oscar Pistorius’s advocate Barry Roux had told him that he, Roux, was going to "lose".
"No, I can’t. You should speak to Roux about it," Nel told News24, smiling as he wheeled his briefcase across the Supreme Court of Appeal courtyard to the exit.
Roux did not answer his phone or respond to a text message for clarification.
After court adjourned on Tuesday afternoon, pool microphones for the broadcast picked up Roux and Nel chatting after proceedings, which had been broadcast live.
Roux and Nel can be heard talking but what they are saying is not clear, but then Roux can clearly be heard saying: "...maar dat ek gaan verloor is feite." [But that I am going to lose is a fact.]
Nel said the microphones should have been switched off.
Brian Webber, Pistorius’s attorney, also could not comment immediately.
"I can’t comment until I have seen the whole recording. I am driving now," he said.
According to an SCA practice note on media coverage, there is an "absolute bar" on audio recordings of legal representatives. Those who failed to comply could be held in contempt of court.
The SCA reserved judgment on Tuesday afternoon after hearing arguments from both sides in the State’s application to appeal Pistorius’s conviction of culpable homicide.
The State wants his conviction to be replaced with that of murder.
On October 21 last year Pistorius was sentenced to five years in prison for shooting Reeva Steenkamp dead on Valentine's Day in 2013.
He fired four shots through the locked door of the toilet in his Pretoria home, apparently thinking an intruder was hiding behind it.
The double-amputee track star was sentenced to a further three years, suspended for five years, for firing a shot at Tasha’s restaurant in Johannesburg in January 2013.
Should the SCA court uphold the appeal, it is unlikely that there will be a retrial.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Mic-should-have-been-switched-off-Nel-20151103
Jenna Etheridge, News24
Bloemfontein - State prosecutor Gerrie Nel said on Tuesday he could not comment on the context in which Oscar Pistorius’s advocate Barry Roux had told him that he, Roux, was going to "lose".
"No, I can’t. You should speak to Roux about it," Nel told News24, smiling as he wheeled his briefcase across the Supreme Court of Appeal courtyard to the exit.
Roux did not answer his phone or respond to a text message for clarification.
After court adjourned on Tuesday afternoon, pool microphones for the broadcast picked up Roux and Nel chatting after proceedings, which had been broadcast live.
Roux and Nel can be heard talking but what they are saying is not clear, but then Roux can clearly be heard saying: "...maar dat ek gaan verloor is feite." [But that I am going to lose is a fact.]
Nel said the microphones should have been switched off.
Brian Webber, Pistorius’s attorney, also could not comment immediately.
"I can’t comment until I have seen the whole recording. I am driving now," he said.
According to an SCA practice note on media coverage, there is an "absolute bar" on audio recordings of legal representatives. Those who failed to comply could be held in contempt of court.
The SCA reserved judgment on Tuesday afternoon after hearing arguments from both sides in the State’s application to appeal Pistorius’s conviction of culpable homicide.
The State wants his conviction to be replaced with that of murder.
On October 21 last year Pistorius was sentenced to five years in prison for shooting Reeva Steenkamp dead on Valentine's Day in 2013.
He fired four shots through the locked door of the toilet in his Pretoria home, apparently thinking an intruder was hiding behind it.
The double-amputee track star was sentenced to a further three years, suspended for five years, for firing a shot at Tasha’s restaurant in Johannesburg in January 2013.
Should the SCA court uphold the appeal, it is unlikely that there will be a retrial.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Oscar_Pistorius/Mic-should-have-been-switched-off-Nel-20151103
dunkyd
Executive Member
Is it on that previous channel? 196 was it?
WaxLyrical
Honorary Master
So what happens to OP if Roux loses?
OrbitalDawn
Ulysses Everett McGill
I heard on EWN this morning they said they discussed it and because it was a private conversation between 2 counsel they won't be reporting on it. Good on 'em.
Oscar appeal: 'Both sides had valid arguments'
Genevieve Quintal, News24
Johannesburg - Law experts were wary to make predictions about what the outcome would be after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) reserved judgment in the Oscar Pistorius matter on Tuesday.
This was despite Pistorius's advocate Barry Roux facing a grilling from some of the judges.
Defence attorney Ulrich Roux said it was clear that Barry Roux had to think on his feet.
"Judge [Eric] Leach was very hard on Barry Roux and asked him some difficult questions especially pertaining to how it is possible that the respondent, or Oscar, could not have foreseen that firing those shots into the door could lead to the death of a person."
He said the definition of dolus eventualis, as pointed out by Leach, was not about whether your actions led to the death of a specific person but rather related to the actual death of a person.
This was regardless of whether you made a mistake in identifying the person.
Roux said that was one of the most important points made during Tuesday's appeal.
"An error in persona, in other words an error in identity of a person does not amount to a defence. It is still dolus eventualis."
However, he said in his opinion Judge Steven Majiedt and Leach showed an inclination towards the State's case.
Pool microphones still on
After court adjourned on Tuesday afternoon, pool microphones for the broadcast picked up Barry Roux and Nel chatting, which was broadcast live.
Roux and Nel can be heard talking but what they are saying is not clear. Roux can then be clearly heard saying: "...maar dat ek gaan verloor is feite." [But that I am going to lose is a fact.]
Asked whether he thought Barry Roux was correct, Ulrich Roux said he did not want to comment.
Kelly Phelps, a senior lecturer in criminal justice at University of Cape Town, said she did not hear the comment and was not sure if it was true.
However, flippant conversation between opponents after a court battle was not unheard of.
"I don't know if that comment was made and we don't know the tone of it. Was it in jest? It's dangerous to read anything into that..."
Phelps said there was no way of saying which way the court would lean.
There is a five judge panel and it is a majority rule.
"We got glimpses of how individual judges were leaning on specific aspects but that doesn't give us at all a realistic indication of where the majority voices are leaning.
"In terms of the theatre we saw play out today and the intensity of the questions, it was absolutely in keeping with a continuum of what you would expect from he Supreme Court of Appeal."
Interactive forum
She said the SCA was a much more interactive forum and it was the judges' final opportunity to really come to grips and answer all the questions they had about the case.
However, it was clear that Barry Roux probably received "more aggressive" questioning than Gerrie Nel, for the State.
"Again that doesn't tell us where the judges' opinion rested in terms of the answers he provided to those questions. I think both teams have got certain significant hurdles to overcome to win this case."
Another defence attorney Manny Witz said he did not watch the full proceedings on Tuesday but from what he had seen Barry Roux had put up a "courageous" argument.
But he said he could not make a prediction on the outcome.
Both sides had an arguable case.
Witz said he had always held the view that at best the verdict should have been dolus eventualis.
"Whoever was behind the door, whether it was the late Reeva or an intruder or whoever it was, you can't shoot in those circumstances especially when there is no imminent danger... Unluckily for him [Pistorius] she had locked the door...
"My understanding of the law is that if you shoot in those circumstances you've got a difficulty."
On Roux's comments about losing, Witz said he did not know in what context the comment was made.
He said he had not heard the comment himself.
"Sometimes they play with each other. What you say and what it means can be two different things."
He also said light banter between opponents after a court matter was normal.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Both-sides-had-valid-arguments-20151104
Genevieve Quintal, News24
Johannesburg - Law experts were wary to make predictions about what the outcome would be after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) reserved judgment in the Oscar Pistorius matter on Tuesday.
This was despite Pistorius's advocate Barry Roux facing a grilling from some of the judges.
Defence attorney Ulrich Roux said it was clear that Barry Roux had to think on his feet.
"Judge [Eric] Leach was very hard on Barry Roux and asked him some difficult questions especially pertaining to how it is possible that the respondent, or Oscar, could not have foreseen that firing those shots into the door could lead to the death of a person."
He said the definition of dolus eventualis, as pointed out by Leach, was not about whether your actions led to the death of a specific person but rather related to the actual death of a person.
This was regardless of whether you made a mistake in identifying the person.
Roux said that was one of the most important points made during Tuesday's appeal.
"An error in persona, in other words an error in identity of a person does not amount to a defence. It is still dolus eventualis."
However, he said in his opinion Judge Steven Majiedt and Leach showed an inclination towards the State's case.
Pool microphones still on
After court adjourned on Tuesday afternoon, pool microphones for the broadcast picked up Barry Roux and Nel chatting, which was broadcast live.
Roux and Nel can be heard talking but what they are saying is not clear. Roux can then be clearly heard saying: "...maar dat ek gaan verloor is feite." [But that I am going to lose is a fact.]
Asked whether he thought Barry Roux was correct, Ulrich Roux said he did not want to comment.
Kelly Phelps, a senior lecturer in criminal justice at University of Cape Town, said she did not hear the comment and was not sure if it was true.
However, flippant conversation between opponents after a court battle was not unheard of.
"I don't know if that comment was made and we don't know the tone of it. Was it in jest? It's dangerous to read anything into that..."
Phelps said there was no way of saying which way the court would lean.
There is a five judge panel and it is a majority rule.
"We got glimpses of how individual judges were leaning on specific aspects but that doesn't give us at all a realistic indication of where the majority voices are leaning.
"In terms of the theatre we saw play out today and the intensity of the questions, it was absolutely in keeping with a continuum of what you would expect from he Supreme Court of Appeal."
Interactive forum
She said the SCA was a much more interactive forum and it was the judges' final opportunity to really come to grips and answer all the questions they had about the case.
However, it was clear that Barry Roux probably received "more aggressive" questioning than Gerrie Nel, for the State.
"Again that doesn't tell us where the judges' opinion rested in terms of the answers he provided to those questions. I think both teams have got certain significant hurdles to overcome to win this case."
Another defence attorney Manny Witz said he did not watch the full proceedings on Tuesday but from what he had seen Barry Roux had put up a "courageous" argument.
But he said he could not make a prediction on the outcome.
Both sides had an arguable case.
Witz said he had always held the view that at best the verdict should have been dolus eventualis.
"Whoever was behind the door, whether it was the late Reeva or an intruder or whoever it was, you can't shoot in those circumstances especially when there is no imminent danger... Unluckily for him [Pistorius] she had locked the door...
"My understanding of the law is that if you shoot in those circumstances you've got a difficulty."
On Roux's comments about losing, Witz said he did not know in what context the comment was made.
He said he had not heard the comment himself.
"Sometimes they play with each other. What you say and what it means can be two different things."
He also said light banter between opponents after a court matter was normal.
News24
Source
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Oscar-appeal-Both-sides-had-valid-arguments-20151104