And the Oscar goes to?

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has filed its papers at the Supreme Court of Appeal, where it is set to appeal Oscar Pistorius’ conviction for culpable homicide. It is expected to call for the Paralympian’s conviction for shooting dead his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day 2013, to be changed to murder.

This comes as Pistorius is set to be released on parole on Friday, where he will spend the rest of his five year sentence under house arrest. He would have spent less than 10 months in prison.

See full story in The Citizen

We have read a lot on the case and the only certainty is everyone has different opinions. The state bases its appeal on the fact that Judge did not correctly interpret “dolus eventualis.”

Yes, who thought Oscar would be responsible for us all learning a bit of legal latin?

To quote the Independent:

A large part of their submission was devoted to the court’s treatment of intent in the form of dolus eventualis. The criminal law writer CR Snyman defines dolus eventualis as follows: “A person acts with intention in the form of dolus eventualis if the commission of the unlawful act or the causing of the unlawful result is not his main aim, but:

(a) He subjectively foresees the possibility that, in striving towards his main aim, the unlawful act may be committed or the unlawful result may be caused and

(b) He reconciles himself with the possibility.”

Citing various examples of South African case law, the State claimed: “It is respectfully submitted that dolus eventualis is proved if the accused foresees a risk of death, however slight, but nevertheless decides to take a chance and gambles with the life of the deceased, resulting in reckless consequences. It is respectfully submitted that such a state of mind on the part of the accused can be inferred objectively from the totality of all the facts.”

A reader commenting on the article stated:

There are two or three items (circumstances) on which the prosecution and the defence were agreed. The first was that Pistorius was on his stumps when he fired the shots into the door. (This means he fired from a low height.) The second was that all the shots were fired at a downward angle. (This is hardly compatible with an intention to kill the person behind the door.) The third is that the bullets in fact struck Reeva in the lower part of the body until she fell down, only then to be struck in the head. These circumstances are not reconcilable with a subjective intention to kill – even by dolus eventualis (ChrisM7).

Then there is the more tabloid stuff like:

New evidence found include Reeva flushed the toilet seconds before being shot says author Barry Bateman  in his book “Behind the Door.” Read the full story in Pretoria East Rekord.

So what do you think, should Oscar be convicted of murder or is enough, enough? Is the state’s appeal just malicious or do they have a case?

For the latest news, visit our webpage or follow us on Facebook and Twitter.