Oscar has some explaining to do

THE State has proved enough for murder accused Oscar Pistorius to have to do some “explaining” for his actions the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp.

Tomorrow, Pistorius could testify as to why he fired four shots at a locked toilet door in his luxury Silver Woods Estate home in Pretoria.

His defence is that he opened fire after mistaking Steenkamp for an intruder on Valentine’s Day last year. The state has closed its case.

Professor James Grant of the Wits School of Law said Pistorius was unlikely to apply for a discharge of the charges and if they did, it was unlikely it would be granted as the “cumulative effect” of the evidence had given Pistorius some explaining to do. For example, Grant said, the court will consider the chances of all the neighbours being wrong.

“It is not a question of each individual neighbour being wrong.”

Llewelyn Curlewis, president of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces agreed, saying if the defence chose not to apply for an acquittal, it was obvious by implication they agreed there was at least a prima facie case to answer.

Grant said the state’s ballistic expert’s evidence was fairly forceful, “especially relating to the order in which Steenkamp was most likely struck by the bullets”.

Grant said if the accused was going to testify, it had to be first. “This is so that he does not have the opportunity to adjust his evidence.” He said the defence would want him on the stand as little as possible, “but they are not in control of that”.

“Once on the stand, he is open to cross-examination from prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who will take his time.

“In truth, what is on trial is Pistorius’ state of mind at that moment in time when he pulled the trigger.”

He said it was most likely the defence would call expert witnesses.

“They might call a psychologist to testify on the vulnerability of disabled people. That would be valid, to try and explain feasibly for the court to understand how he could possibly have made the mistakes.”

But he added that it wouldn’t count for as much as hearing from Pistorius. Grant said the difference between the murder charge and culpable homicide was that the murder charge was judged subjectively, “which is why it is all-important as to what he was thinking”.

“Culpable homicide, which is a competent verdict on a charge of murder, is judged objectively. The test in our law is what the reasonable person in the “external immediate circumstances of the accused” would have thought and done.

“To date our law has never taken account of the disabilities of an accused to lower that standard.”

He said what could hurt Pistorius was his conduct around guns. “The courts raise the standards where we are talking about conduct which requires a special skill or knowledge, such as the handling of a firearm”.

“His conduct will be compared to ... a reasonable firearms owner.”