mister happy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 1,309
- Reaction score
- 2,237
Masipa used the following quote from case law in expanding on her rationale for not finding OP guilty of Murder Dolus Eventualis:
Subjective foresight, like any other factual issue, may be proved by inference to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. The inference must be the only one that can reasonably be drawn. It cannot be so drawn if there is a reasonable possibility that subjectively the accused did not foresee, even if he ought reasonably to have done so and even if he probably did do so.
Im still trying to fully understand it but Im thinking she felt that a verdict of Dolus Eventualis would be easily overturned by an appeal court by using this case law but that a verdict of culpable homicide was more secure from this. If so, I expect her sentence to be harsher than others are expecting.
I think the issue here is the judge has to abide by the law and precedent and setting precedent herself would be more vulnerable to a successful appeal. She repeatedly said the onus was on the State to prove beyond reasonable doubt and she found that it had not.
Hmmm.. well hopefully JM may surprise us (pleasantly!) yet.