Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #67 *Appeal Verdict*

[mrjitty]

The key point is that Masipa's judgement was riddled with obvious errors and poor quality drafting mistakes as many professionals identified right away

Whereas the SC judgement comes from 5 Appellate Judges as opposed to one High Court Judge, and is not riddled with obvious mistakes.

Of course Roux may succeed on appeal - we've all seen successful last chance saloon appeals

But his appeal looks weak I have to say as he is limited to the same weak sauce that failed in the SC

 

[mrjitty]

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

We can 100% confidently say that is not going to happen.

It was not at issue in the SC and cannot be appealed.

 

[mrjitty]

Of course he should return straight to prison. Otherwise he is yet again being given preferential treatment. Why should any murderer, regardless of status, be allowed to stay out of jail for potentially several months while awaiting sentence? I hope this doesn't happen. It's a mockery if it does.

It reminds me a bit of Knife boy and Foxy Knoxy

Although in that case there guilt was not yet confirmed at the highest level

 

[Viper]

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

RSBM

It is improper to fix an unaffordable amount of bail if there are good prospects of success on appeal.[SUP][133][/SUP]

Hello All! Glad that scum has finally been convicted of at least Murder! Really happy for Reeva's family! Justice!

The last sentence is most relevant. The prospects of overturning a SCA decision are much smaller than overturning the original trial court's verdict (Masipa), if OP had elected to challenge it. And, Roux has to lay out a compelling argument about why the SCA is wrong. Personally I doubt this new judge will give OP any slack. We'll see tomorrow.

 

[Viper]

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.

FYI.. OP is entitled to an attorney but he is not entitled to the best attorney(s) possible or that money can buy, he can get those if he can afford them. In this case his uncle seems to be most concerned with maintaining his own personal wealth; lucky for OP that his attorneys are working his case for free now, very lucky, but appeals cost only a fraction of what the original trial cost. Cheap family, not good, really not good at this point.

 

[foxbluff]

How much do you want to bet that the agreement between Nel & Roux involves more restrictive House Arrest...i.e. wears monitor, can only leave home for Community Service, medical appointments and Court Hearings???---------------------------------------------------------------------http://ewn.co.za/2015/12/07/Roux-agrees-to-let-Pistorius-surrender-himself-to-High-Court----

JOHANNESBURG - Eyewitness News [BB] understands Oscar Pistorius’s presence in court on Tuesday has been secured through negotiations between the State and the defence and not a warrant for arrest.... Proceedings are scheduled to start at 9:30am when Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba will hear a bail application and set a date for sentencing argument next year.... It’s still unclear whether the State will oppose bail, however, it’s understood Roux and Prosecutor Gerrie Nel have been in talks, which included an agreement on setting strict conditions to be imposed on Pistorius.... Tomorrow might also see Roux revealing whether the defence intends taking the latest court ruling on appeal to the Constitutional Court....proceedings aren't expected to take longer than 30 minutes because of agreements already reached between the state and defence....

 

[LemonMousse]

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.

Ah - the "interests of justice". Is that what motivates your posts?

Interesting. Can't quite see where "OP's anguish is worse than the Steenkamps because they'll be dead soon anyway" fits with that noble pursuit.

 

[LemonMousse]

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?

Hmmm. Shouldn't take too long.

Would a reasonable disabled person be likely to elect to confront danger, in a situation where they are not trapped, and murder a human being who may wish them no physical harm?

That's a head scratcher.

What's the likelihood that anyone sensible will say "Yes"?

If that's all he's got, he will not win.

 

[saraomar]

 

[saraomar]

View attachment 85365

 

[Interested Bystander]

FYI.. OP is entitled to an attorney but he is not entitled to the best attorney(s) possible or that money can buy, he can get those if he can afford them. In this case his uncle seems to be most concerned with maintaining his own personal wealth; lucky for OP that his attorneys are working his case for free now, very lucky, but appeals cost only a fraction of what the original trial cost. Cheap family, not good, really not good at this point.

I read sometime last year that Uncle a was pretty fed up with how much the legal fees were (sounds as though he might have been coughing up as well as OP, unless he was sorting the finances on OP's behalf) and he was going to have the charges taxed and assessed. Again it was a newspaper report and one can never be sure of the complete truthfulness of the articles.

This is another section of the article I posted earlier about Roux not charging fees.

[FONT=&amp]http://www.news24.com/Archives/City-Press/Oscars-R175-million-legal-headache-20150430[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“A sourceclose to the family said there was “definitely great unhappiness” about the legal fees which were “much higher” than the family expected.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold Pistorius, has told family members he is considering having the bill “taxed and assessed”.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Any client unhappy with their legal costs can approach the Taxing Master of the court for a “taxation of costs”. The legal team would need to justify the reasonableness of the costs being claimed, and the issue is then decided by the Taxing Master.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]A source close to the legal team says Arnold Pistorius has refused to cover the outstanding amount, believing his nephew should be responsible for the bill.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]But Pistorius – who was estimated to earn about R20? million a year before the 2012 London Olympics – has no more money, so the bill has been sent to his uncle.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]City Press understands there was tension between Roux and Arnold Pistorius, who tried to influence the direction of the case but was told to butt out. A source close to the legal team said his opinion was not welcome, given his refusal to settle outstanding fees.”[/FONT]

 

[saraomar]

 

[saraomar]

Posted by nick van der leek on Twitter. Hope am not violating any policies, never posted pics screenshots before, apologies In advance!

 

[Interested Bystander]

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!

I read somewhere that there could be a suspension (incorrect terminology but cannot remember what it was) of up to 5 years of the sentence but cannot find it now .

 

[mister happy]

I read somewhere that there could be a suspension (incorrect terminology but cannot remember what it was) of up to 5 years of the sentence but cannot find it now .

Man, I'm reading this, that and the other thing. ??? Wouldn't it be funny if OP ends up serving less time for murder than for CH?

 

[sleuth-d-]

I read somewhere that there could be a suspension (incorrect terminology but cannot remember what it was) of up to 5 years of the sentence but cannot find it now .

on the mandatory minimum sentence there shouldn't be any postponement/suspension...

"
297 Conditional or unconditional postponement or suspension of sentence, and caution or reprimand
(1) Where a court convicts a person of any offence, other than an offence in respect of which any law prescribes a minimum punishment, the court may in its discretion-
(a) postpone for a period not exceeding five years the passing of sentence and release the person concerned-
(i)
on one or more conditions, whether as to- (aa) compensation;
(ii)
and order such person to appear before the court at the expiration of the relevant period; or
unconditionally, and order such person to appear before the court, if called upon before the expiration of the relevant period; or
(bb) (cc)
the rendering to the person aggrieved of some specific benefit or service in lieu of compensation for damage or pecuniary loss;
the performance without remuneration and outside the prison of some service for the benefit of the community under the supervision or control of an organization or institution which, or person who, in the opinion of the court, promotes the interests of the community (in this section referred to as community service);
[Item (cc) substituted by s. 20 (a) of Act 33 of 1986.] (ccA) submission to correctional supervision;
(dd) (ee)
(ff)
(gg) (hh)
[Item (ccA) inserted by s. 47 of Act 122 of 1991.] submission to instruction or treatment;
submission to the supervision or control (including control over the earnings or other income of the person concerned) of a probation officer as defined in the Probation Services Act, 1991 (Act 116 of 1991);
[Item (ee) amended by s. 4 of Act 18 of 1996.]
the compulsory attendance or residence at some specified
centre for a specified purpose; good conduct;
any other matter,
(b) pass sentence but order the operation of the whole or any part thereof to be suspended for a period not exceeding five years on any condition referred to in paragraph (a) (i) which the court may specify in the order; or…
"

etc etc

http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimi...rica#Postponement_and_suspension_of_sentences

 

[Interested Bystander]

on the mandatory minimum sentence there shouldn't be any postponement/suspension...

"
297 Conditional or unconditional postponement or suspension of sentence, and caution or reprimand
(1) Where a court convicts a person of any offence, other than an offence in respect of which any law prescribes a minimum punishment, the court may in its discretion-
(a) postpone for a period not exceeding five years the passing of sentence and release the person concerned-
(i)
on one or more conditions, whether as to- (aa) compensation;
(ii)
and order such person to appear before the court at the expiration of the relevant period; or
unconditionally, and order such person to appear before the court, if called upon before the expiration of the relevant period; or
(bb) (cc)
the rendering to the person aggrieved of some specific benefit or service in lieu of compensation for damage or pecuniary loss;
the performance without remuneration and outside the prison of some service for the benefit of the community under the supervision or control of an organization or institution which, or person who, in the opinion of the court, promotes the interests of the community (in this section referred to as community service);
[Item (cc) substituted by s. 20 (a) of Act 33 of 1986.] (ccA) submission to correctional supervision;
(dd) (ee)
(ff)
(gg) (hh)
[Item (ccA) inserted by s. 47 of Act 122 of 1991.] submission to instruction or treatment;
submission to the supervision or control (including control over the earnings or other income of the person concerned) of a probation officer as defined in the Probation Services Act, 1991 (Act 116 of 1991);
[Item (ee) amended by s. 4 of Act 18 of 1996.]
the compulsory attendance or residence at some specified
centre for a specified purpose; good conduct;
any other matter,
(b) pass sentence but order the operation of the whole or any part thereof to be suspended for a period not exceeding five years on any condition referred to in paragraph (a) (i) which the court may specify in the order; or…
"

etc etc

http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1977-051.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimi...rica#Postponement_and_suspension_of_sentences

No, suspension was the incorrect word. It is where a prisoner serves a large part of his sentence but he is freed from jail on the condition he commits no further crime in whatever was the timsescale prescribed which could be up to 5 years.

 

[Interested Bystander]

Man, I'm reading this, that and the other thing. ??? Wouldn't it be funny if OP ends up serving less time for murder than for CH?

I don't think that is very likely. I used the wrong terminology which still escapes me. I have tried to explain what I meant in a response to Sleuth-d-.

 

[sleuth-d-]

No, suspension was the incorrect word. It is where a prisoner serves a large part of his sentence but he is freed from jail on the condition he commits no further crime in whatever was the timsescale prescribed which could be up to 5 years.

ok, i see. what you describe sounds very similar to parole...

 

[Interested Bystander]

ok, i see. what you describe sounds very similar to parole...

Yes, I agree, but the terminology was different. I think it is pre-determined at the time of the sentence.