Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #65~ the appeal~

[JudgeJudi]

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 44s44 seconds ago
Majiedt points to case law suggesting #OscarPistorius case may have to be referred for retrial - if Masipa found to have misapplied the law

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 13 Sek.Vor 13 Sekunden
#OscarPistorius the court dealing with case law which sets out what happens if the sate is successful - retrial? Substitute finding? BB

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 42 Sek.Vor 42 Sekunden
#OscarPistorius Nel argues that the court should substitute the earlier finding with one of murder. BB

 

[JudgeJudi]

Nel wants the SCA to find OP guilty of murder and refer him back to High Court for sentence.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Is this being shown live? Thank you

Yes: http://ewn.co.za/Features/Oscar-Pistorius-Appeal

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 1 Min.Vor 1 Minute
#OscarPistorius Nel has concluded his submissions. The court has a few more questions for him. BB

 

[Sherbert]

Nel: The Court correctly defined DE, but then misapplied it.

SCA agrees.

 

[Sherbert]

She's confused PPD with intention, too.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Seen: June and the blonde woman who had accompanied her during trial, not seen: Barry.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 2 Min.Vor 2 Minuten
#OscarPistorius Leach: the issue was not whether it was (Steenkamp), but related t the person in the cubicle. (On application of eventualis)

 

[JudgeJudi]

Roux is on his feet. Aaaaargh.

Karyn Maughan ‏@karynmaughan · 1m1 minute ago
Roux persists in argument that state appeal is based on Masipa's factual findings, not legal interpretation. #OscarPistorius

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman · 3m3 minutes ago
#OscarPistorius Roux: our starting point is that the questions reserved do not constitute questions of law, but rather of fact. BB

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 14 Sek.Vor 14 Sekunden
#OscarPistorius Roux: our starting point is that the questions reserved do not constitute questions of law, but rather of fact. BB

 

[cottonweaver]

Nelrevious case, on substituting sentence if there is an appeal. We are not asking you to sentence.
majedt: section 324 is an issue.Difficulty is Magmoed where the matter stands in your way Nel? Prodecural defects in the lower court finding mean there should be a re-trial
Nel: ( On re-trial issues and d .jeop) Yes, but SCA has power to substitute the conviction. Subtitute it for murder due to the errors. Roux talks about re-trial and no stomach for it. Well neither of us want a re-trial but if that is the only way to correct the error but my main argument is that you should correct the conviction and then refer it back for sentence
Mpati:Q! Of law in your heads. Is it law or facts? ( “4.1 Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts and the conduct of the accused, including error in objecto. ) It for me is a question of fact.

Nel: It is Q of law. Quotes case law

It is respectfully submitted that in S v Beukes en ‘n Ander, this Honourable Court pertinently held that since:
“The chances of an accused admitting, or of it appearing from other evidence, that he had indeed foreseen a remote consequence are very thin”, a Court “draws an inference concerning an accused’s state of mind from the facts which point to it being reasonably possible, objectively seen, that the consequence would eventuate.”

Nel: If the court made factual finding, then the appn of the principles to those factual findings is key.
Mpati: explain to me the principles of DE and intent
Nel: well u have to look at all the evidence. ….. court just wanted to apply DE without error in objecto and other principles ( sorry I missed it) court never considered error in objecto properly. “or any other person was in the bathroom
Leech: But masipa said that “or any other person for that matter” Masipa has confused PPD with intention too. She hasn't applied principle sof PPD properly

( pause in proceedings, chats between judges, oops microphone picks up words!!!Not allowed)

Roux is on now

 

[Sherbert]

Roux: the questions posed could never be questions of law.

 

[cottonweaver]

Anyone fancy doing Roux?

I'm leaving it to Sherbert , as your posts are helping me Sherbert

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Roux sounds like a Märchenerzähler= storyteller.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 35 Sek.Vor 36 Sekunden
#OscarPistorius Roux: the court did not ignore the circumstantial evidence, Masipa referred to it in her ruling. BB

Barry Bateman ‏@barrybateman 2 Min.Vor 2 Minuten
#OscarPistorius Roux indicated in his heads that he would need five hours to argue. Let’s see what the court decides. BB

 

[Sherbert]

Roux says it was common cause that the shots came first.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

..... the deceased could not scream .......

I don't want to hear that! :tantrum:

 

[Sherbert]

Masipa is quite correct. She wasn't going to speculate - Roux.