Pistorius set to give his side of story

PARALYMPIAN Oscar Pistorius is likely to take the stand today as the defence presents its case in his trial.

The state, which wrapped up its case on Tuesday, set out to prove that Pistorius, 27, intentionally and deliberately murdered his girlfriend, former Port Elizabeth model Reeva Steenkamp, 29, when he fired bullets through a toilet door in his Pretoria home on Valentine’s Day last year.

There is also the possibility that Pistorius’s team could bring an application for the case to be discharged.

But if it does not, Pistorius – who has indicated he will testify – should be the defence’s first witness. He will then have an opportunity to explain his version of events.

That hinges on proving that the shooting occurred because the “Blade Runner” genuinely, but mistakenly, believed there was an intruder in his home and that his and Steenkamp’s lives were in imminent danger.

The defence may argue that Pistorius acted in putative self-defence – where he genuinely believed he was acting to avert a perceived danger, but in reality there was none.

If the court accepts this, Pistorius’s team will still have to show that he acted as a “reasonable person”. If it cannot, Pistorius could be found guilty of culpable homicide for negligence.

To test negligence, Judge Thokozile Masipa would need to consider how the “reasonable person” would have acted in similar circumstances, University of Cape Town criminal law expert Professor Jonathan Burchell said.

The test would also be used to determine whether Pistorius’s version of events was reasonable.

“The reasonable person is an ordinary, average person ... with ordinary perception and ordinary values,” Wits University law expert Professor Stephen Tuson said.

Pretoria attorney Llewellyn Curlewis said the test was an objective one, and the court would need to put itself in the shoes of an average man in the same position and circumstances.

Tuson said Pistorius’s defence team might argue that the athlete be evaluated as an ordinary disabled person.

Burchell said: “The circumstances that are factored into the decision of whether the killing was negligent include the accused’s physical disabilities ... for instance, if the accused is an amputee who may be particularly vulnerable to attack.

“When the accused has knowledge and experience beyond the ordinary average person, then he or she is judged by what a reasonable person with such experience would have foreseen,” he said.