‘No reason to justify lenient sentence’ for Oscar
Prosecutor Andrea Johnson opened her arguments by saying that that trial Judge Thokozile Masipa erred in sentencing Oscar to a six-year jail sentence on murder.
Johnson said this sentence was shockingly lenient and inappropriate for a crime such as murder, where the legislator in this case prescribed a minimum sentence of 15 years behind bars.
One of Johnson’s points was that Oscar never showed remorse for what he had done. “He may be sorry for what he had done, but it is not remorse,” she said.
Judge Ronnie Bosielo responded, saying: “He made various attempts to talk to the family. What more can he do? How more must he verbalise his remorse?”
The State turned to the SCA in an attempt to obtain a harsher sentence for Oscar and argued that Judge Masipa had “undue sympathy” for Oscar and that the six year did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime.
The prosecution asked the court to both grant leave to appeal and to deliver a verdict on the appeal itself. Judge Bosielo pointed out that the SCA was reluctant to meddle in sentences meted out by other courts, but Johnson said this was a case where it was warranted.
It is the second time that the state has turned to the SCA to challenge the findings of Judge Masipa. The State in December 2015 managed to have the trial court’s verdict of culpable homicide overturned and replaced with a verdict of murder.
The events of that morning, when Oscar fired four shots at the toilet door behind which Reeva was hiding, featured prominently during yesterday’s appeal arguments. Advocate Barry Roux, acting for Oscar, was grilled by several of the judges who repeatedly wanted to know why he fired the four shots into the toilet cubicle.
“To fire four shots into the door and there is no way out of the toilet is critical,” Justice Pieter Meyer said.
Both Justices Bosielo and Willie Seriti said they have read the record of the proceedings and they were still in the dark as to why Oscar had fired the shots. Oscar maintained throughout his trial that he believed there were intruders behind the door and he said he wanted to protect Reeva and himself.
In kicking off the proceedings yesterday, Johnson argued that Judge Masipa took the fact that Oscar feared there were intruders in his house as a mitigating factor. “His evidence was so contradictory that one simply does not know its true nature. We still do not have a true explanation as to why he had shot her,” she said.
She referred to the remarks of the SCA when it overturned the culpable homicide finding. Johnson also said Oscar’s disability further served as a mitigating factor when Judge Masipa sentenced him. She pointed out that despite his disabilities he had overcome a lot and became an Olympian.
“There is simply no reason to justify his lenient sentence,” she said.
Roux faced more questions from the bench regarding the events of morning when Reeva was shot.
Roux argued that one must understand that Oscar was vulnerable as he was not wearing his prostheses and he feared crime.
The judges repeatedly wanted to know why Oscar did not play open cards with the court, especially after he was convicted of murder.
“Why did he not then take the stand and explain what happened? Why did he not explain the four shots,” Justice Meyer asked.
Roux said while he could not condone the four shots, one had to look at things through Oscar’s eyes.
“He did not fire with evil intent,” Roux said.
He said Oscar was not in a mental state after the previous SCA verdict to have taken the stand.
Oscar, meanwhile, would celebrate his 31st birthday on November 22 in the Atterdigeville prison with the cloud of a possible harsher sentence hanging over his head.