Judge Masipa rules against Pistorius sentence appeal
JUDGE Thokozile Masipa’s ruling lasted less than five minutes.
State prosecutor Gerrie Nel had spent more than an hour arguing why Oscar Pistorius’s prison sentence of six years for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp was shockingly inappropriate, unduly sympathetic and an overall misdirection of the court. But, unmoved by Nel’s arguments and the 30 points he had used to try to poke holes in her judgment, she told the Johannesburg High Court: “I am not convinced…”
According to the judge, Nel had failed to persuade her that another court would have implemented a harsher sentence, and ordered the State to pay the costs of the proceedings.
As Nel left the courtroom, shaking his head, he declined to comment on whether or not the State would petition the Supreme Court of Appeal to overturn the most recent of Judge Masipa’s decisions.
Even the National Prosecuting Authority held its cards close to its chest, with spokesman Luvuyo Mfaku yesterday telling the Independent on Saturday that the State’s legal team would “put (its) heads together” and only announce their decision at a later date.
Nel began yesterday morning by explaining the application was not an “impertinent” attack on Masipa’s sentence, but simply an acknowledgment that another court would likely have ruled differently.
According to the State’s application and Nel’s reiteration of his heads of argument, there were three aggravating major factors that Masipa should have taken into account in her sentencing: the number of shots fired, that Pistorius had already formed the intention to shoot in his bedroom, before he had even approached the bathroom, and lastly the Supreme Court of Appeal’s rejection of the athlete’s claims of self-defence.
However, the State revealed 30 other points as to why the court “misdirected itself ”, from overemphasising the forgiveness of the Steenkamp family – who during the sentencing proceedings earlier this year expressed their deep levels of sadness over the young model’s death – to Masipa’s “undue sympathy” for Pistorius.
Meanwhile, Pistorius’s legal team, headed by advocate Barry Roux, stated in their responding papers that they believed the State’s application was doomed to fail.
Roux yesterday argued the State had not taken into account Pistorius had already spent 12 months in jail when previously convicted of culpable homicide, as well as serving seven months under house arrest.
This effective eight-year sentence was anything but lenient, according to Roux.
“I understand judicial scrutiny... But enough is enough,” he said, of the State’s continued attempts to increase the athlete’s sentence.
The defence lawyer also said the State had not taken into account the emotional difficulty Pistorius had by serving a prison sentence, then returning to the outside world and then being sent back behind bars.
“What is it that the State wants that is going to be acceptable?” he asked the court.