THE fact that Oscar Pistorius may only spend 10 months behind bars for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp is a “shockingly light, inappropriate” sentence.
This is according to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which yesterday applied for leave to appeal the sentence Judge Thokozile Masipa handed out after she found the “Blade Runner” guilty of culpable homicide in September.
Pistorius, 27, shot Steenkamp, 29, through a closed toilet door in his home on February 14 last year.
Masipa sentenced Pistorius to five years in prison, but he will only have to serve 10 months behind bars if he successfully applies for his sentence to be converted into correctional supervision.
The NPA has also asked that certain questions of law arising from Judge Masipa’s judgment be considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
In papers filed at the Pretoria High Court yesterday, prosecutors Gerrie Nel and Andrea Johnson argue that Judge Masipa’s sentence “would not have been imposed by any reasonable court”.
“Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her.
“The sentence imposed is shockingly inappropriate for the accused that armed him, with the intention to shoot, walked to the bathroom and fired four shots, knowing that there was a human being behind the door.”
A date has not yet been set for Judge Masipa to decide whether or not to grant leave to appeal.
Kelly Phelps, law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said that Pistorius’s defence team could oppose the state’s application, but Pistorius’ lawyer, Brian Webber, did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.
The NPA has also asked the SCA to answer certain questions of law, including whether Judge Masipa applied the principles of dolus eventualis correctly when she decided that Pistorius was guilty of culpable homicide.
Among their other questions, they also want the SCA to clarify whether an accused can rely on several defences, even if they exclude one another. They said Pistorius could not say he never meant to shoot at all and, at the same time, rely on the defence of putative self-defence, saying he fired in response to a perceived threat to his life.
The prosecutors also ask whether the court should have rejected Pistorius’ evidence “on the finding that he was untruthful and had more than one defence”.
Phelps said that an appeal court could find that the law is clear but that Judge Masipa had applied it incorrectly.
“Then the appeal court could either replace her finding with a finding it believes is appropriate or it could refer the matter back to the trial court to be considered afresh.”
Alternatively, if an appeal court finds that an area of the law is unclear and needs to be clarified, this would not have any impact on Pistorius’ conviction.
NPA lodges Oscar appeal
This is according to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which yesterday applied for leave to appeal the sentence Judge Thokozile Masipa handed out after she found the “Blade Runner” guilty of culpable homicide in September.
Pistorius, 27, shot Steenkamp, 29, through a closed toilet door in his home on February 14 last year.
Masipa sentenced Pistorius to five years in prison, but he will only have to serve 10 months behind bars if he successfully applies for his sentence to be converted into correctional supervision.
The NPA has also asked that certain questions of law arising from Judge Masipa’s judgment be considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
In papers filed at the Pretoria High Court yesterday, prosecutors Gerrie Nel and Andrea Johnson argue that Judge Masipa’s sentence “would not have been imposed by any reasonable court”.
“Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which died coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her.
“The sentence imposed is shockingly inappropriate for the accused that armed him, with the intention to shoot, walked to the bathroom and fired four shots, knowing that there was a human being behind the door.”
A date has not yet been set for Judge Masipa to decide whether or not to grant leave to appeal.
Kelly Phelps, law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, said that Pistorius’s defence team could oppose the state’s application, but Pistorius’ lawyer, Brian Webber, did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.
The NPA has also asked the SCA to answer certain questions of law, including whether Judge Masipa applied the principles of dolus eventualis correctly when she decided that Pistorius was guilty of culpable homicide.
Among their other questions, they also want the SCA to clarify whether an accused can rely on several defences, even if they exclude one another. They said Pistorius could not say he never meant to shoot at all and, at the same time, rely on the defence of putative self-defence, saying he fired in response to a perceived threat to his life.
The prosecutors also ask whether the court should have rejected Pistorius’ evidence “on the finding that he was untruthful and had more than one defence”.
Phelps said that an appeal court could find that the law is clear but that Judge Masipa had applied it incorrectly.
“Then the appeal court could either replace her finding with a finding it believes is appropriate or it could refer the matter back to the trial court to be considered afresh.”
Alternatively, if an appeal court finds that an area of the law is unclear and needs to be clarified, this would not have any impact on Pistorius’ conviction.
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