Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[soozieqtips]

Well it seems obvious now, that is, Frank most likely heard what was going on in that household that night. He was already standing outside when the first help arrived. Now, as a witness (eye/ear or both) if he had something to say which would 'help' the perpetrator - the P family would have ensured that he was on the stand.

So, its safe to speculate that what he witnessed (eye/ear or both) would not 'assist' the perpetrator and the P family have ensured that he not speak. My opinion only.

Absolut.

Sorry, I've been watching lots of Scandi dramas recently

 

[Belgarion]

Well it seems obvious now, that is, Frank most likely heard what was going on in that household that night. He was already standing outside when the first help arrived. Now, as a witness (eye/ear or both) if he had something to say which would 'help' the perpetrator - the P family would have ensured that he was on the stand.

So, its safe to speculate that what he witnessed (eye/ear or both) would not 'assist' the perpetrator and the P family have ensured that he not speak. My opinion only.

Considering how quick Pistorius looks for someone else to take the blame, ie Tasha’s incident, one could be cynical and assume Frank would only have been called to the stand if he had agreed to take the blame for shooting Reeva. If not, then the truth is in my opinion, his ‘status’ in SA society have allowed sufficient ‘pressures’ to be applied to ensure any ‘knowledge’ he may have had of the incident would remain never to be spoken of in court or otherwise.

Apart from a brief appearance outside of the house at the crime scene Frank has not only remained silent but also seems to have disappeared from the face of the earth. Perhaps it was suddenly discovered he had just the qualities required to fill a well-paid position managing some distant family interests in Outer Mongolia

 

[JudgeJudi]

The last I read about Frank, he was still employed by the family. As members of the family have interests outside SA, I think it's quite possible that he may have been sent to a neighbouring country. If he'd been given a golden handshake, it may look very suspicious to banks etc. as well as individuals or anyone who knew him if he was suddenly able to afford things that otherwise would not have been possible on a very low wage.

 

[Belgarion]

The last I read about Frank, he was still employed by the family. As members of the family have interests outside SA, I think it's quite possible that he may have been sent to a neighbouring country. If he'd been given a golden handshake, it may look very suspicious to banks etc. as well as individuals or anyone who knew him if he was suddenly able to afford things that otherwise would not have been possible on a very low wage.

In reality wherever he is Frank is as quiet as Reeva was claimed to have been when Pistorius was screaming and pumping bullets into her.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

In reality wherever he is Frank is as quiet as Reeva was claimed to have been when Pistorius was screaming and pumping bullets into her.

... BUT Frankie is indeed quiet and Reeva certainly was not ( Frakie fears for his life and has to be quiet, Reeve feared even more for her life and had to scream as loud as she was able to do, only Masipa had no till zero imagination of this situation).

 

[Interested Bystander]

http://www.enca.com/opinion/oscar-pistorius-link-dolus-eventualis-still-missing
http://www.enca.com/news-team/dr-roche-steyn
“Did the Supreme Court of Appeal score 100%?

In my respectful assessment, although the judgment is excellent for the most part, there are some material problems in the manner in which the Court proceeded from the point of finding that there was dolus eventualis on Oscar’s part to the point of concluding that the defence of putative private defence cannot be sustained.”

A long article worth reading. There also is another earlier article mentioned in this piece which you can find here:-

http://www.enca.com/opinion/oscar-pistorius-what-essential-missing-link’-dolus-eventualis

 

[soozieqtips]

http://www.enca.com/opinion/oscar-pistorius-link-dolus-eventualis-still-missing
http://www.enca.com/news-team/dr-roche-steyn
“Did the Supreme Court of Appeal score 100%?

In my respectful assessment, although the judgment is excellent for the most part, there are some material problems in the manner in which the Court proceeded from the point of finding that there was dolus eventualis on Oscar’s part to the point of concluding that the defence of putative private defence cannot be sustained.”

A long article worth reading. There also is another earlier article mentioned in this piece which you can find here:-

http://www.enca.com/opinion/oscar-pistorius-what-essential-missing-link’-dolus-eventualis

I read one of those articles earlier and the bit that stood out was this:

"It is evident what the impact was in the SCA judgment: the essential aspect of subjective knowledge of unlawfulness was not duly addressed, and this could accordingly render the outcome invalid".

I'm no legal expert but surely all of the SCA judges couldn't have overlooked the same point, could they?

 

[Belgarion]

I read one of those articles earlier and the bit that stood out was this:

"It is evident what the impact was in the SCA judgment: the essential aspect of subjective knowledge of unlawfulness was not duly addressed, and this could accordingly render the outcome invalid".

I'm no legal expert but surely all of the SCA judges couldn't have overlooked the same point, could they?

This analysis by Dr Roché Steyn who is a Medico-legal Specialist has been around for a while, there are YouTube videos of him being interviewed on the subject.

In my opinion the important things to remember is Dr Roché Steyn is an academic and not a practicing lawyer. Where it states, ‘the essential aspect of subjective knowledge of unlawfulness was not duly addressed, and this could accordingly render the outcome invalid’ is in itself just the subjective opinion of the author as to whether a matter was 'duly addressed' and to what extent. Plus it is in the nature of academics to make ‘knowledgeable statements’ that enhance their reputations in the media.

However, it is up to the individual to conclude if Dr Steyn is better qualified than 5 Supreme Court judges in the understanding of the law in this situation.

Personally I don’t see Justice Leach, et al being unduly perturbed.

 

[Interested Bystander]

This analysis by Dr Roché Steyn who is a Medico-legal Specialist has been around for a while, there are YouTube videos of him being interviewed on the subject.

In my opinion the important things to remember is Dr Roché Steyn is an academic and not a practicing lawyer. Where it states, ‘the essential aspect of subjective knowledge of unlawfulness was not duly addressed, and this could accordingly render the outcome invalid’ is in itself just the subjective opinion of the author. Plus it is in the nature of academics to make ‘knowledgeable statements’ that enhance their reputations in the media.

However, it is up to the individual to conclude if Dr Steyn is better qualified than 5 Supreme Court judges in the understanding of the law in this situation.

Personally I don’t see Justice Leach, et al being unduly perturbed.

I did wonder whether there was an element of Pistorian support lurking within the article. However, it does no harm to take on board the gamut of opinion in order to draw a valid conclusion. I firmly think that OP is a murderer and that the SCA brought in a just verdict but it is never a good idea to jettison/ignore all other opinions. That could be construed as being almost as bad as being a Pistorian.


PS Anyone surprised we have not heard whether there will be a further Appeal? Whilst we know 15 days is the norm to submit an Appeal, it was expected there would be some leeway but it is now over a calendar month since the SCA.

 

[L2L]

Would the "leave to appeal" have been handed in by now? Wasn't it 15 days from the day of the verdict handed down by the SCA? How much longer before we're likely to hear anything about either the 'leave to appeal' and/or 'the appeal'? Terrible waiting!

 

[Tortoise]

Regarding the leave to appeal, can this be submitted while the SCA is on recess? I see it isn't back until 15th February. Who would be there to hear the application?

 

[L2L]

Regarding the leave to appeal, can this be submitted while the SCA is on recess? I see it isn't back until 15th February. Who would be there to hear the application?

Good question! So what did the "15 days" refer to? Maybe the 'leave to appeal' needed to be submitted within 15 days whether or not anyone was actually there to read/hear it?

 

[Tortoise]

I read one of those articles earlier and the bit that stood out was this:

"It is evident what the impact was in the SCA judgment: the essential aspect of subjective knowledge of unlawfulness was not duly addressed, and this could accordingly render the outcome invalid".

I'm no legal expert but surely all of the SCA judges couldn't have overlooked the same point, could they?

I'm no legal expert either, but here is my tuppence worth on this; (based only on the quote in your post and without having read the full article) Steyn is possibly falling into the trap of ignoring the multiple defences. The finding that he acted intentionally was made against him - it was not his defence that he acted intentionally. Therefore he, Pistorius, can never succeed, in my opinion, with this angle. Subjective knowledge does not come into play and cannot be brought into play when he has claimed, so vehemently, to have acted without thinking or intention when he pulled the trigger.

Mr. Clever screwed himself on the stand.

 

[Tortoise]

Good question! So what did the "15 days" refer to? Maybe the 'leave to appeal' needed to be submitted within 15 days whether or not anyone was actually there to read/hear it?

Hopefully someone with knowledge of such matters will be able to answer this for us.

 

[Belgarion]

Hopefully someone with knowledge of such matters will be able to answer this for us.

Well I claim no particular knowledge but according to the rules of the ConCourt…

A litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a court and who wishes to appeal against it directly to the Court on a constitutional matter shall, within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is sought to be brought and after giving notice to the other party or parties concerned, lodge with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal.

Now it would appear the office of the Registrar is open from 08:30 to 13:00 and from 14:00 to 15:30 on court days with a ‘court day’ being defined as any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday

The four terms in each year when the court sits occur during ‘court days’ but do not define them.

So the way I see it is Pistorius' application for leave to appeal should have been with the Registrar by now irrespective of the fact the application may well not be considered until the court next sits on 15 Feb.

This makes sense as otherwise the time to lodge an appeal would vary greatly and indeed unfairly if it were tied to the actual terms when the court sits

 

[L2L]

Well I claim no particular knowledge but according to the rules of the ConCourt…

A litigant who is aggrieved by the decision of a court and who wishes to appeal against it directly to the Court on a constitutional matter shall, within 15 days of the order against which the appeal is sought to be brought and after giving notice to the other party or parties concerned, lodge with the Registrar an application for leave to appeal.

Now it would appear the office of the Registrar is open from 08:30 to 13:00 and from 14:00 to 15:30 on court days with a ‘court day’ being defined as any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday

The four terms in each year when the court sits occur during ‘court days’ but do not define them.

So the way I see it is Pistorius' application for leave to appeal should have been with the Registrar by now irrespective of the fact the application may well not be considered until the court next sits on 15 Feb.

This makes sense as otherwise the time to lodge an appeal would vary greatly and indeed unfairly if it were tied to the actual terms when the court sits

Thank you for clarifying! Pretty much as I was thinking : that the application would be with the Registrar by now whether or not there was anyone available to consider it. Leaves OP at UA's mansion for several more months, all of which will most likely be taken into consideration for sentencing ... if that ever happens!

What would the "constitutional matter" be that DF would appeal against in OPs case? I understand it can only be a constitutional matter on which an appeal can be made to the ConCourt.

 

[Belgarion]

Thank you for clarifying! Pretty much as I was thinking : that the application would be with the Registrar by now whether or not there was anyone available to consider it. Leaves OP at UA's mansion for several more months, all of which will most likely be taken into consideration for sentencing ... if that ever happens!

What would the "constitutional matter" be that DF would appeal against in OPs case? I understand it can only be a constitutional matter on which an appeal can be made to the ConCourt.

There is confusion on this point.

The Constitution of SA was amended in 2013 to read in Chapter 8 para 166:

The Constitutional Court—

(a) is the highest court of the Republic; and

(b) may decide—

(i) constitutional matters; and

(ii) any other matter, if the Constitutional Court grants leave to appeal on the grounds that the matter raises an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by that Court

(c) makes the final decision whether a matter is within its jurisdiction.

However, even though section b(ii) does not appear on the ConCourt website (needs updating perhaps!) it is probably safe to say as the Constitution of SA takes precedent then the ConCourt is not now just restricted purely to constitutional matters.

Will be interesting to see if Roux can come up with something that is 'an arguable point of law of public importance'

 

[L2L]

There is confusion on this point.

The Constitution of SA was amended in 2013 to read in Chapter 8 para 166:

The Constitutional Court—

(a) is the highest court of the Republic; and

(b) may decide—

(i) constitutional matters; and

(ii) any other matter, if the Constitutional Court grants leave to appeal on the grounds that the matter raises an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by that Court

(c) makes the final decision whether a matter is within its jurisdiction.

However, even though section b(ii) does not appear on the ConCourt website (needs updating perhaps!) it is probably safe to say as the Constitution of SA takes precedent then the ConCourt is not now just restricted purely to constitutional matters.

Will be interesting to see if Roux can come up with something that is 'an arguable point of law of public imporetanc'

I have no doubt at all!

 

[Ochre Blue]

Surely OP & team have by now passed the 'use by' date for lodging their appeal (on whatever grounds they can possibly dream up)!

For mine, Judge Leach was utterly convincing and clearly laid out what many of us on WS had been airing. It felt like 'case closed' to this lay person IMHO! (Unlike with Masipa's judgment etc, I'm sorry to say).

 

[WilliamMunter]

The trial of Oscar Pistorius—dolus eventualis once again

Here is an article, albeit pre-SCA appeal, by Prof Steph van der Merwe, author of Criminal Procedure Handbook, and Prof Andrew Paizes, who was Prof James Grant's lecturer.

Apologies if it has been posted before but I found it makes interesting reading nonetheless while we wait for further news.

https://jutalaw.co.za/newsletter/newsletter/criminal-justice-review-2-of-2014/