Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks. I hadn't read that. My understanding was that Pistorius had no money left to pay him but not that he wasn't being paid. Well, what a charitable fellow hey? Doing all this for free when the family has so much money.

I edited my original post which reads somewhat differently. Sorry to confuse.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Here is the article about Roux et al not being paid.

http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Oscars-R175-million-legal-headache-20150430


“Oscar Pistorius has racked up lawyers’ bills amounting to R17.5?million – and he cannot pay them.
The athlete, sentenced to five years in jail on Tuesday for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, is broke and still owes his lawyers in the region of R10?million.
City Press understands that 27-year-old Pistorius’ financial situation is so dire that his high-powered legal team – led by Advocate Barry Roux SC, and which included Advocate Kenny Oldwage and attorney Brian Webber – has been representing him free of charge for at least the past two months”.

 

[Interested Bystander]

How totally weird. I just looked at Carl's Twitter a/c. Last Friday he was camping out in the bush. This past weekend may have been his last with OP and he chooses to absent himself???

I also noticed that apart from the main page, OP's official website has shut down.

Do you think that was where OP was going when he was seen leaving driving a car? At the moment it seems he has no restrictions whatsoever.

 

[soozieqtips]

How totally weird. I just looked at Carl's Twitter a/c. Last Friday he was camping out in the bush. This past weekend may have been his last with OP and he chooses to absent himself???

I also noticed that apart from the main page, OP's official website has shut down.

BIB - do you think he already knows OP won't be going back to jail for months?

 

[JudgeJudi]

On appeal, are the facts of the case carefully looked at again or only the interpretation of the law?

Both the law and the facts are reconsidered. But in South African law, appeal courts pay very great respect to the trial court’s factual and credibility findings. This means these are not easily overturned. An appeal court is not strictly confined to the legal issues, but its power to overturn the trial court’s factual findings is limited. It will show deference to the court that saw first-hand the witness testimony, physical evidence, and so on, and may depart from the trial court’s factual findings only if the inference it drew from the evidence before it was clearly wrong.

I'm uncertain how Roux intends to get around the BIB as it seems quite clear they have discretionary powers.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ing-tried-for-murder-in-South-Africa-20140516

 

[Interested Bystander]

Thanks for all the updates.

I am taking reassurance from that tweet from JGrant upthread that he cannot slap in an Appeal at same time as apply for bail. ( Hope it does means that- FINGERS CROSSED that's what Grant is saying. )

So NPA have not rushed with any warrants as they know he will not get bail anyway so they can afford to look magnanimous?

Can anyone remember, did the bail application last time get decided quickly? Surely this one will get decided on the same day?

The bail conditions were issued on the last day of the bail hearing BUT virtually totally rescinded within two weeks.

 

[mrjitty]

On appeal, are the facts of the case carefully looked at again or only the interpretation of the law?

Both the law and the facts are reconsidered. But in South African law, appeal courts pay very great respect to the trial court’s factual and credibility findings. This means these are not easily overturned. An appeal court is not strictly confined to the legal issues, but its power to overturn the trial court’s factual findings is limited. It will show deference to the court that saw first-hand the witness testimony, physical evidence, and so on, and may depart from the trial court’s factual findings only if the inference it drew from the evidence before it was clearly wrong.

I'm uncertain how Roux intends to get around the BIB as it seems quite clear they have discretionary powers.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ing-tried-for-murder-in-South-Africa-20140516

Its basically a hail mary

hope for a Court with a different mood.

 

[JudgeJudi]

RSBM

Basically the starting point is 15 years - of which he would expect to be out after half via Parole.

This can actually be reduced below the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

So what the actual minimum is I think is hard to say - but i think it will be not lower than 8-10

So that means real jail time of 4-5

Minus one served = 3 or 4 years more.

But it could be a lot more

My calculations are a bit different. I think the State will ask for more than 15 but I'll use this as the starting point.

I don't believe there are exceptional circumstances, and in view of the SCA's decision and the very pointed comments given by Leach, I don't think he'll get too much off for his disability this time around so I'm making it minus 2.

Then minus a further 1 for year already served.

So that reduces it to 12 years.

Eligible for parole after serving 6 years.

Real time in prison of 6.

I want him to spend 15 in prison, but this won't happen.

 

[Interested Bystander]

RSBM


My calculations are a bit different. I think the State will ask for more than 15 but I'll use this as the starting point.

I don't believe there are exceptional circumstances, and in view of the SCA's decision and the very pointed comments given by Leach, I don't think he'll get too much off for his disability this time around so I'm making it minus 2.

Then minus a further 1 for year already served.

So that reduces it to 12 years.

Eligible for parole after serving 6 years.

Real time in prison of 6.

I want him to spend 15 in prison, but this won't happen.

I agree he will no way get 15. I have a feeling that if it is going to Appeal he will also be allowed out on bail until that hearing.

Here is why:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_procedure_in_South_Africa

The provisions of section 60 do not apply to bail pending appeal, although they may still be relevant to the extent that they embody common-law concepts. The fact that the person is now convicted and sentenced to imprisonment changes the position practically: There is no longer a presumption of innocence, on the one hand; on the other hand, the incentive to evade justice is greater. In principle, bail may be granted even if the case is serious and the convicted person is facing a long period of imprisonment. The key factor is whether or not the convicted person will report for sentence.[SUP][132][/SUP] It is improper to fix an unaffordable amount of bail if there are good prospects of success on appeal.[SUP][133][/SUP]

 

[JudgeJudi]

If we assume for one moment that it is Uncle Arnold stumping up the money for a ConCourt appeal, I think that rather than doing it for OP, he's doing it to remove the stigma of having a convicted murderer associated with the family name Pistorius. There are quite a few grandchildren already and I'm sure there will be more.

However, it won't make one iota of difference because everyone knows he knowingly murdered Reeva.

 

[WilliamMunter]

barrybateman Via Twitter

#OscarPistorius cameras have been permitted access - the bail app will be broadcast and streamed. BB

 

[LemonMousse]

Bail app is going to be televised, according to Barry Bateman.

So, 7.30am UK time.

 

[JudgeJudi]

So yet again we have one more :bed: (Oz time).

See you all tomorrow. I'm getting my voodoo doll out again but this time I'll be using darning needles.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

EWN Reporter ‏@ewnreporter 4 Std.Vor 4 Stunden
#OscarPistorius will appear in the North Gauteng High Court tomorrow. Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba will hear the bail app. BB

 

[sleuth-d-]

We looked at this a couple of weeks ago - if you have the interest to go back through my posts I found the relevant sections of the minimum sentencing regime.

Basically the starting point is 15 years - of which he would expect to be out after half via Parole.

This can actually be reduced below the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

So what the actual minimum is I think is hard to say - but i think it will be not lower than 8-10

So that means real jail time of 4-5

Minus one served = 3 or 4 years more.

But it could be a lot more

re: your real jail time calculation/parole
you may wish to look at this link regarding eligibility for parole.
pistorius will be section 73(6)(v). which would be 4/5ths for the minimum sentence offences. [but could be 2/3rds at Masipa's discretion]

"
Section 73(6)(a) of the Correctional Services Act provides that:
a prisoner serving a determinate sentence may not be placed on parole until such a prisoner has served either the stipulated non-parole period, or if no non-parole period was stipulated, half of the sentence, but parole must be considered whenever a prisoner has served 25 years of a sentence or cumulative sentences.
"

"
Under section 73(6)(v), an offender sentenced in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act [44], which provides for minimum sentences for stipulated offences: [45]
may not be placed on parole unless he or she has served at least four fifths of the term of imprisonment imposed or 25 years, whichever is the shorter, but the court, when imposing imprisonment, may order that the prisoner be considered for placement on parole after he or she has served two thirds of such term.
"

http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....epages/2011volume14no5/MujuziDOC2011(14)5.pdf

 

[Interested Bystander]

So yet again we have one more :bed: (Oz time).

See you all tomorrow. I'm getting my voodoo doll out again but this time I'll be using darning needles.

That really made me laugh out loud.

 

[mrjitty]

re: your real jail time calculation/parole
you may wish to look at this link regarding eligibility for parole.
pistorius will be section 73(6)(v). which would be 4/5ths for the minimum sentence offences. [but could be 2/3rds at Masipa's discretion]

"
Section 73(6)(a) of the Correctional Services Act provides that:
a prisoner serving a determinate sentence may not be placed on parole until such a prisoner has served either the stipulated non-parole period, or if no non-parole period was stipulated, half of the sentence, but parole must be considered whenever a prisoner has served 25 years of a sentence or cumulative sentences.
"

"
Under section 73(6)(v), an offender sentenced in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act [44], which provides for minimum sentences for stipulated offences: [45]
may not be placed on parole unless he or she has served at least four fifths of the term of imprisonment imposed or 25 years, whichever is the shorter, but the court, when imposing imprisonment, may order that the prisoner be considered for placement on parole after he or she has served two thirds of such term.
"

http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....epages/2011volume14no5/MujuziDOC2011(14)5.pdf

Thanks!

 

[mrjitty]

re: your real jail time calculation/parole
you may wish to look at this link regarding eligibility for parole.
pistorius will be section 73(6)(v). which would be 4/5ths for the minimum sentence offences. [but could be 2/3rds at Masipa's discretion]

"
Section 73(6)(a) of the Correctional Services Act provides that:
a prisoner serving a determinate sentence may not be placed on parole until such a prisoner has served either the stipulated non-parole period, or if no non-parole period was stipulated, half of the sentence, but parole must be considered whenever a prisoner has served 25 years of a sentence or cumulative sentences.
"

"
Under section 73(6)(v), an offender sentenced in terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act [44], which provides for minimum sentences for stipulated offences: [45]
may not be placed on parole unless he or she has served at least four fifths of the term of imprisonment imposed or 25 years, whichever is the shorter, but the court, when imposing imprisonment, may order that the prisoner be considered for placement on parole after he or she has served two thirds of such term.
"

http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....epages/2011volume14no5/MujuziDOC2011(14)5.pdf

Thanks!

Looking back I can't see where I got the 50% parole thing from

Maybe I made it up or it was one of those lazy copying it off what these guys say in the media

I have noticed quite a bit of what says by the lawyers on RSA TV turns out not to be completely accurate!

 

[mhiforme]

BIB - wishful thinking and I highly doubt it. OP is clutching at straws to save himself from doing any extra time. That's the kind of 'icon' he is. However, if the CC were to overturn the verdict, I'd be unhappy with it but accept it.

A question for you: have you accepted the SCA's judgment?

BIB

I did accept Masipa's ruling of CH and felt that was appropriate.
I also watched and read the SCA's judgement and can understand their rationale for murder. I also accept this and have no issue with this as OP received a fair trial and the decision was unanimous.

But I don't feel this is the end of the case. In the SCA judgement, Leech does say "The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions and, in thelight of an appeal structure, those of the appellate court prevail"

So if this does go to the CC, I can see an argument around the reasonable man test and the need to have a reasonable disabled man test. I think there is also a possibility of the CH verdict being restored as I believe what Masipa did was relate to OP's disability with her own health issues and in turn applied an incorrect (at this point in time) version of the reasonable man test.

This case has been much more than just a CH/murder trial.

It's been about defining:

1. Circumstantial evidence
2. Dolus Eventualis

and we may now get a new definition in South Africa for the reasonable man test, who knows?

 

[mhiforme]

I sincerely hope that Barry Roux is not representing Pistorius for free. Fine if he's being paid to lay this tripe before the courts, but for free?

I think it's a wonderful thing when lawyers work pro bono because they believe entirely in their client's innocence.

But no one is going to tell me that the very intelligent, sharp as a tack Barry Roux honestly believes, in the depth of his heart, that Pistorius did not know that was Reeva. I realise that he won't know for sure as he cannot knowingly mislead the court, but there's knowing and there's KNOWING, right?

If anyone should be working for free it should be that pompous old windbag Oldwadge. Roux should thank Pistorius for all the money, buy himself a nice country estate and leave him to his well deserved fate.

IMO.

BIB, do you feel that Oldwadge is less competent than Roux and that's why it's ok for him to work for free on the OP trial?

In the interests of justice, OP should be given the best defence possible and if Roux is willing to work for free, that should be no one's business but OP's and Roux's.