Ukraine in Arabic | The prosecutors can appeal Pistorius verdict
KYIV/Ukraine in Arabic/ Oscar Pistorius again faces the possibility of a murder conviction after a South African judge ruled Wednesday that prosecutors can appeal against the double-amputee Olympian's conviction on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
Judge Thokozile Masipa said she was satisfied that prosecutor Gerrie Nel had raised “questions of law” that another court could interpret differently when considering the Paralympian’s intentions in shooting dead his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
“I cannot say … that the prospect of success at the supreme court of appeal is remote,” Masipa ruled at the high court in Pretoria, South Africa. “The application, therefore, in respect of count one is decided in favor of the applicant.”
The decision is likely to be welcomed by Steenkamp’s parents, Barry and June, who strongly condemned the original verdict, as well as campaigners against domestic violence who believe it sent a dangerous message to society. The Steenkamps’ lawyer, Dup de Bruyn, said: “All they’re saying is justice must run its course and they want to get on with their lives.”
The matter will now go to the supreme court of appeal in Bloemfontein, the country’s judicial capital, but typically it can take at least a year for a case to be heard. By then Pistorius may already be out of prison and under house arrest because of the terms of his five-year sentence.
A panel of judges at the Supreme Court will consider whether Masipa erred in not applying the principle of dolus eventualis, a category of murder where the perpetrator subjectively foresees the possibility of his or her act causing death and persists regardless. If it decides Pistorius’s actions fall within this definition, it can upgrade his culpable homicide conviction to murder, which carries a minimum 15-year sentence.
The double amputee athlete admits shooting Steenkamp, a model and law graduate, four times through a locked toilet door at his home on Valentine’s Day last year but claims he mistook her for an intruder. Pistorius, 28, is serving his sentence in Kgosi Mampuru II prison in the capital and was not in court on Wednesday.
His father, Henke, was the only member of either Pistorius or Steenkamp’s families in the public gallery. After Masipa’s ruling, he said: “I don’t want to say anything before it’s decided, but it shouldn’t have gone this far.”
Pistorius’s uncle, Arnold Pistorius, currently abroad, said in a statement: “We note the finding of the court and abide by the ruling.”
South Africa’s beleaguered National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), under fire after the collapse of the Shrien Dewani murder trial this week, welcomed the judge’s decision. Its spokesman, Nathi Mncube said: “This is what we wanted and we are happy the judge would deliver judgment in our favour.
“Our argument was that he should have been convicted of murder, and then would have been sentenced to a minimum sentence of 15 years. That is, of course, what we would like to happen.
“It’s not about winning. It’s about justice and justice has been served, and I think that’s what people want … The judges do not just rubber-stamp decisions.”
Mncube said he hoped the appeal would be “expedited” but acknowledged that the process could take a long time. “The person who is accused, I’m sure, would like to know as soon as possible.”
Masipa dismissed separate state applications for leave to appeal against Pistorius’s five-year sentence and his acquittal on a charge of illegal possession of ammunition. Ncube said the NPA would consider whether to petition the supreme court of appeal directly on these counts.
On Tuesday Nel had argued that the sentence was “shockingly inappropriate”. “Based on all the facts, we say that the element of mercy was over-exaggerated,” he said.
Disputing the conviction, he claimed that Pistorius should have known that firing four shots through the door would result in death, even if he did not “wish the result”. He said: “It’s inconceivable that he had any intention other than to kill that person or accepted that he may. It is an erroneous application of dolus
