Oscar Pistorius will find out tomorrow whether the state will be granted its application for leave to appeal his culpable homicide conviction and five-year prison sentence.
Today defence lawyer Barry Roux argued that it was impossible for the state to prove its appeal was based on matters of legal principle when it was clearly trying to have the facts of the case against Pistorius reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Roux told Judge Thokozile Masipa that her judgment in the case was based on sound legal principles and that the state was crying foul because it did not like her findings.
He said that while prosecutor Gerrie Nel had argued that there were several hurdles that the state needed to address with regards to its appeal, none of these applied. This was because it had "failed to get out of the starting blocks" because the grounds for their application were based on factual, not legal, findings and under South African law these cannot be relied on as the basis for an appeal.
Roux argued that it was legally incorrect to argue that Masipa's interpretation of the evidence constituted a legal matter as it was the court's duty to make a decision on what evidence was accepted as factual and that these decisions could not be disputed.
Masipa will make her ruling tomorrow.
Pistorius to find out whether state is granted application
Today defence lawyer Barry Roux argued that it was impossible for the state to prove its appeal was based on matters of legal principle when it was clearly trying to have the facts of the case against Pistorius reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Roux told Judge Thokozile Masipa that her judgment in the case was based on sound legal principles and that the state was crying foul because it did not like her findings.
He said that while prosecutor Gerrie Nel had argued that there were several hurdles that the state needed to address with regards to its appeal, none of these applied. This was because it had "failed to get out of the starting blocks" because the grounds for their application were based on factual, not legal, findings and under South African law these cannot be relied on as the basis for an appeal.
Roux argued that it was legally incorrect to argue that Masipa's interpretation of the evidence constituted a legal matter as it was the court's duty to make a decision on what evidence was accepted as factual and that these decisions could not be disputed.
Masipa will make her ruling tomorrow.
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