NOT OVER FOR OSCAR
The state’s appeal against what they deemed an inappropriate sentence for Pistorius for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp in 2013, was yesterday dismissed by Judge Thokozile Masipa – but prosecutor Gerrie Nel still has options.
Nel to consider options, including approaching the SCA directly.
Judge Thokozile Masipa, after hearing arguments by advocates Gerrie Nel for the state and Barry Roux for Oscar Pistorius in the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg, yesterday denied Nel’s application for leave to appeal Pistorius’s “shockingly inappropriate” six-year sentence for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
National Prosecuting Authority spokesperson advocate Luvuyo Mfaku told The Citizen that the state would “now consider our options in terms of the way forward and approaching the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) directly”. Attorney Similo Silwana told
The Citizen yesterday that, in his opinion, since the state was using public resources, Nel would now first need to motivate to National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams why there was a need to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal directly.
“The motivation has to happen before the appeal is made,” Silwana said. “In my opinion, the state feels that if left unchallenged, the sentence creates a bad precedent in the legal system.”
Yesterday was the second time in this matter that Masipa’s judgment was questioned by the state.
Pistorius killed Steenkamp when he fired four bullets through his bathroom door on Valentine’s Day in 2013, and has maintained he never meant to kill her.
Despite this, the SCA found he meant to kill someone when he opened fire when it overturned Masipa’s judgment of culpable homicide.
Consequent to the SCA ruling, Masipa sentenced Pistorius to six years from a limit of 15 years, taking into account – as directed by the SCA – time already served by Pistorius.
Delivering her ruling yesterday, Masipa said she remained unpersuaded that there were reasonable prospects of the state’s success on appeal, or that another court would find differently.
“For that reason, I grant the following order: The application for leave to appeal against the sentence is dismissed with costs, in accordance with the provisions of section 316(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.”
The section reads, in part: “the court may order that the state pay the accused concerned the whole or any part of the costs to which the accused may have been put in opposing the appeal or application”.