Paralympian Oscar Pistorius is likely to take the stand today as the defence presents its case in his murder trial.
The state, which wrapped up its case on Tuesday, set out to prove that Pistorius intentionally and deliberately murdered his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp when he fired bullets at a toilet door in his Pretoria home on St Valentine’s Day last year.
Pistorius’s team may bring an application for the case to be discharged today; however, if it doesn’t, Pistorius – who’s indicated he will testify - should be the defence’s first witness. He will then have an opportunity to explain his version of events.
This version 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 in self defence 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 can’t, 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, said University of Cape Town criminal law expert, Professor Jonathan Burchell.
Burchell said that the test would also be used to determine whether Pistorius’s version that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder was “reasonable”.
“The reasonable person is an ordinary, average person ... with ordinary perception and ordinary values,” said Wits University law expert Professor Stephen Tuson.
Pretoria attorney Llewellyn Curlewis added that the test was an "objective" one, and the court would need to put itself in the shoes of an “average man on the street” in the same position and circumstances as Pistorius during the incident.
Tuson said Pistorius’s defence team might argue that the athlete be evaluated as an “ordinary disabled person”.
Burchell agreed: “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 an experience would have foreseen”, said Burchell.
This opens the door for Pistorius’s reasonable standard to be raised because of his knowledge and use of firearms, according to Burchell.
QUESTION OF REASONABLENESS LIKELY TO BE KEY IN PISTORIUS CASE
The state, which wrapped up its case on Tuesday, set out to prove that Pistorius intentionally and deliberately murdered his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp when he fired bullets at a toilet door in his Pretoria home on St Valentine’s Day last year.
Pistorius’s team may bring an application for the case to be discharged today; however, if it doesn’t, Pistorius – who’s indicated he will testify - should be the defence’s first witness. He will then have an opportunity to explain his version of events.
This version 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 in self defence 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 can’t, 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, said University of Cape Town criminal law expert, Professor Jonathan Burchell.
Burchell said that the test would also be used to determine whether Pistorius’s version that he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder was “reasonable”.
“The reasonable person is an ordinary, average person ... with ordinary perception and ordinary values,” said Wits University law expert Professor Stephen Tuson.
Pretoria attorney Llewellyn Curlewis added that the test was an "objective" one, and the court would need to put itself in the shoes of an “average man on the street” in the same position and circumstances as Pistorius during the incident.
Tuson said Pistorius’s defence team might argue that the athlete be evaluated as an “ordinary disabled person”.
Burchell agreed: “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 an experience would have foreseen”, said Burchell.
This opens the door for Pistorius’s reasonable standard to be raised because of his knowledge and use of firearms, according to Burchell.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos