Oscar verdict: what the experts say

The Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment will most likely greatly assist prosecutors in the future, say experts.

Johannesburg - It was a straightforward judgment, but it has clarified a number of difficult concepts in law and will most likely greatly assist prosecutors in the future.

This was what experts had to say about the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment on Thursday that convicted Oscar Pistorius of murder.

Dr James Grant, a criminal-law expert, said that knocking down the Seekoei judgment would allow prosecutors to appeal in cases whereas before they had no legal recourse.

The 1982 case law had been a major thorn in the State’s side that prevented prosecutors from pursuing certain criminal appeals.

But with Pistorius's judgment, people who had been convicted of lesser crimes than what they had actually committed will now have to watch out for dedicated prosecutors seeking to appeal.

Grant said the appeal has also greatly clarified the contentious concept of dolus eventualis, or murder with indirect intent, meaning future cases can also cite this judgment to ensure no criminals can easily escape the legal concept.

Judge Eric Leach’s criticism of the verdict of the judges who presided over Pistorius’s trial to essentially ignore certain key circumstantial evidence will also mean that other judges will be less likely to do the same, Grant added.

While he was unwilling to comment on the merits of Pistorius's case, he tweeted on Thursday after the judgment: “My daughters, our daughters, are safer today than they were yesterday. There can be nothing more important than that.”

A law professor at Wits University, Stephen Tuson, agreed that the judgment would assist prosecutors in the future. He found the judgment to be “unsurprising” and fairly straightforward.

What Tuson found interesting was the dismantling of Pistorius’s defence, one of which was putative self-defence. He said someone claiming putative self-defence would always intend to shoot their attacker, perceived or real. However, because Pistorius testified that he never intended to shoot, this defence was dismissed.

Tuson also explained that because the Constitutional Court has become the country’s apex court, Pistorius can approach it to appeal against the appeal court’s decision.

Pistorius has been referred back to the high court for sentencing and could now face up to 15 years in prison.

However, Judge Thokozile Masipa could ultimately find Pistorius’s disability a compelling circumstance to lower this number substantially, and according to Tuson, the athlete’s year in prison will likely be subtracted from the total sentence.

And if either side is unhappy with the sentencing outcome, they can appeal.

shain.germaner@inl.co.za

The Star

* Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.