Application for Leave to Appeal in full
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s36SD0wAMqdrz115h111EkZZEy0xAws8ZCc5qn4fs3E/edit
This document appears to be littered with references to putative private defence as if this was accepted by the trial Court…….
…..once the putative private defence had been established
….the facts related to the Applicant’s defence of putative private defence formed part of the accepted facts that were before the SCA.
…..the Trial Court found, with reference to putative private defence, that the Applicant had never intended to kill the person in the toilet cubicle
…..a factual finding by the Trial Court that the Applicant had genuinely, though erroneously believed that his life and that of the Deceased were in danger (putative private defence)
……In so doing the SCA found that the Applicant “did not entertain an honest and genuine belief that he was acting lawfully…”. The Applicant’s putative private defence was thus rejected and a conviction of murder returned.
…….this was excluded by virtue of the Applicant’s genuine belief that his life and that of the Deceased were in danger (putative private defence),as found by the Trial Court
….The SCA, however, disregarded the Trial Court’s finding of putative private defence
…….Trial Court judgment also established the putative private defence, which the SCA did not include in their quotation.
This is simply not true Masipa did not accept Pistorius acted with putative private defence. In fact she said, ‘Counsel for the State, correctly in my view, submitted that if the accused never intended to shoot anyone he cannot rely on putative private defence'. In other word she rejected ppd not accepted it as the appeal document suggests