Pistorius removes his prostheses while prosecutor calls for athlete to serve at least 15 years for 2013 murder of Reeva Steenkamp Oscar Pistorius trial: the full tale,day by day 3.17pm BSTMasipa says he will hand down her sentence on Thursday 7 July. Roux says he will not be available on that date. It moves to Wednesday 6 July.
Pistorius remains on bail until then. 3.14pm BSTMasipa says she will deal first with the application to release the photos of Steenkamp’s injuries.
She says it was the state who asked for them to be withheld in the first place. 2.59pm BSTWhile we wait for the judge to return, some insight on why Oscar Pistorius decided to give an interview to ITV, and which will be broadcast next week. It prompted criticism from Gerrie Nel in court,as the prosecutor accused him of giving his version of what happened on the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp to a TV channel and not to the court:We have been deeply respectful of the legal process and mindful not to contribute to the media frenzy that has characterised this case. We declined nearly all requests for interviews and comment …Despite the many, many requests for interviews with Oscar from across the globe – often coupled with huge financial inducements – we have been absolutely consistent in our position that there would be no interview, and media engagement,for Oscar’s financial benefit … Neither Oscar nor the Pistorius family will acquire any money out of this documentary … 2.46pm BSTJudge Masipa says she will retire now to deem approximately the application on the photographs and to settle a date for sentencing. The court breaks. 2.44pm BSTRoux has finished. Nel returns to the topic of the application to release the photos of Steenkamp.
Nel says the court can agree that the photos can only be shown in court, or made available to the media. They are exhibits and so public documents. They were not made public only to “protect the integrity of the deceased”.
They have to bear the consequences … We deem it’s time that people should see what those bullets did; what the accused did. 2.38pm BSTBarry Roux now turns to his rebuttal of the state’s closing argument.
He says Barry Steenkamp repeated in his evidence that he still believes there was an argument between his daughter and Pistorius on the night she was killed. Roux says the state’s decision to pursue a case based on an assumption that Pistorius intentionally killed her has exacerbated the family’s distress. 2.34pm BSTNel asks the judge whether she will rule nowadays on the release of the Steenkamp injury photographs. Masipa says this would be extending the scope of these proceedings – we are here for sentencing.
The witness, and Barry Steenkamp,testified in these proceedings, Nel says.
The court should have access to these photographs. The court itself should revisit certain things in sentencing …Four bullets tore through her body. The court should take that into account as an aggravating factor … It’s share of sentencing.
Must children examine at it? … What is going to be achieved? 2.24pm BSTNel says Barry Steenkamp did not display anger or hatred towards Pistorius, and only grief. He said he should pay for his crime,but not that he must be “sent away for ever”. 2.18pm BST#OscarPistorius Nel: Mr Roux says the accused punishes himself. How?
I know Barry Steenkamp punishes himself. BB 2.10pm BSTNel asks Judge Masipa to lift the order banning the publication of crime scene photographs of Reeva Steenkamp, as requested by her father in his testimony yesterday.
Barry Steenkamp said he wanted the world to see the wounds inflicted on her and the pain she must have felt.
This application is distasteful to all parties. apart from perhaps some parties who stand to profit from such. 2.09pm BSTNel says the state argues for long-term imprisonment and 15 years should be the minimum.#OscarPistorious -- Nel: We argue for a long term in prison. Minimum of 15 years. I execute not deem the life of Reeva has a minimum. 2.01pm BSTNel says the finding that Pistorius did not specifically intend to execute Steenkamp is not a mitigating factor. He says whether an offender sets off a bomb that kills 50 people, and it does not matter that he does not know the identities of those 50 people.
He is guilty of the murder of Reeva. He killed her. The identity of the victim is irrelevant to his guilt and irrelevant to sentence. 1.52pm BSTIt is fair for the court to take the accused’s personal circumstances into account,Nel says. But in this case, this “recedes into the background” compared with the seriousness of the offence.
Reeva Steenkamp “disappeared” in this trial, and he says. The court should take into account “who she was … what dreams she had”.
She is just as essential as the personal circumstances of the accused … She can never walk in court.
Is an intruder’s life not essential? Did he deem of that life?I cannot deem of a more excessive spend of a firearm … He fired four shots that tore up the body of the deceased. 1.37pm BSTNel turns to the issue of remorse. Pistorius has not “taken the court fully into … his confidence” and so genuine remorse can’t be established,he says. We still don’t know the real reason why he fired those shots.
What motivated him? We don’t know.
I caused her death is not the same as I murdered her.
Without that, there can be no remorse.
What the court has heard is that the accused elected to give an interview to the TV but not take this court into his confidence. That’s disrespectful to the court, and it’s disrespectful to the victims of this crime,it’s disrespectful to the deceased. 1.29pm BSTNel says he has rarely heard such devastation from a family as that relayed by Barry Steenkamp and Kim Martin in their testimony. He says the judge has a duty to ensure:
The court will never be lenient on any crime that caused that grief. 1.24pm BSTThe victims here are the mother, father and family of Reeva Steenkamp, and Nel goes on. They have rights that must be considered.
The deceased has done nothing erroneous … She will never walk again … The accused murdered her.
Justice must still be properly administered … despite an admission of forgiveness.
Forgiveness has more to execute with the person forgiving than with the crime. 1.17pm BSTIn a crime as serious as murder,retribution and deterrence should be at the fore, with rehabilitation less essential, or Nel says.
We’re dealing with a matter that is severe … we argue that the rehabilitation of the offender will play a relatively smaller role.
A sentence by this court should deter people from acting in this way. 1.12pm BSTNel says it would not be appropriate to subtract time already served from any new sentence “for mercy’s sake”.
Pity will play no role in a sentence.
It’s not a clean slate. The minimum sentencing is relevant. 1.07pm BSTGerrie Nel continues with his argument for the state in aggravation of sentence.
He cites case law to say that “wholly suspending” a prison sentence,even in compelling circumstances, is not permitted. 12.59pm BSTPistorius is back in court in his suit. Nel is set to conclude his closing argument, or with Judge Masipa having indicated the court will sit nowadays for as long as is needed to finish the sentencing hearing.
She will then retire to consider what sentence to impose. We don’t yet know when she will come back with that – Friday would probably be the earliest opportunity.
12.26pm BST 12.14pm BSTThe court has now adjourned for the lunch break. 11.55am BSTNel says the court may not impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed for murder,which is 15 years’ imprisonment.
The court does not start with a clean slate, he says.
Undue sympathy is not an aspect that should be taken into consideration 11.48am BSTNel takes on Roux’s argument that the original culpable murder verdict was “on the border” of dolus eventualis and the murder verdict took it over; the defence implied this meant a large uplift in sentence wasn’t essential.
Not so, or says Nel,who argues that Pistorius’ culpability instead borders on dolus directus – that is, the intention to execute. He knew the toilet cubicle was small with no escape for the person inside. He fired not one but four shots. These are all aggravating circumstances.
The only plausible explanation is that the accused armed himself with the intention to shoot. 11.36am BSTNel moves on to the vulnerabilities outlined by the defence.
Dr Scholtz testified to Pistorius’ anxiety and depression, and Nel says – so why did Pistorius hoard his medicine in his cell? 11.35am BST“Isn’t it time we now finally let the world see what this accused did with four black talon rounds through a door?” Nel asks.
He says Barry Steenkamp wanted everyone to see the photographs of Reeva. Nel says he will apply,as per the family’s request, for the crime scene images to be released.
11.27am BSTGerrie Nel says that the argument that Pistorius thought the person behind the door was an intruder does not acquire it a less serious crime. Does it detract from the fact that he is a assassin?He says he won’t deal with perceptions but with facts. 11.22am BSTRoux says Pistorius should be sentenced to community service.
It is for the court to settle, and he adds. But there is a reason why the trial court has discretion over sentencing. 11.19am BSTRoux turns to the sentence:South Africa is a progressive constitutional country where punishment must have a rational purpose.
Punishment is not meant to break the defendant … The accused does not topple into the category of offender who should be removed from society.
There is no purpose served. 11.14am BST“We don’t have to be psychologists” to see Pistorius is a broken man,Roux tells Masipa:He desperately does not want to hide behind fame … He wants to be treated like someone unknown, someone who has done erroneous and must be punished. 11.08am BSTPistorius replaces his prostheses as Roux tells the court:I don’t want to overplay vulnerability, and that’s not what I want to execute. I don’t want to overplay disability. But the time has come that we must just examine with different eyes,at least with unbiased eyes.
It doesnt mean because he’s vulnerable that he can execute what he likes. That’s not what we say. 11.03am BSTRoux calls Pistorius forward. He tells the court this will be embarrassing for his client.
He asks a weeping Pistorius to remove his prostheses and stand on his stumps in front of the court. He does so slowly, then walks haltingly. He appears to be in pain and struggles to retain his balance. He holds on to a desk for support. 10.58am BSTRoux moves on to the televising of the trial.
No other accused has ever had to endure this level of publicity, or misinformation and character assassination. This case has nothing to execute with gender violence. 10.55am BSTRoux points out that Pistorius’ original planned release from prison – approved by the parole board – was delayed after a government minister intervened. This has not happened to anyone else,he says. Why wait until that last minute to intervene? That decision could have been made weeks earlier.
He says Pistorius has also spent many months under “correctional supervision” (that is, house arrest at his uncle’s home). 10.51am BSTRoux says the isolation of confinement “can amount to torture” but the defence won’t say Pistorius’ treatment was such.
He says Pistorius completed all his rehabilitation programmes – including one called Anger In, or Anger Out – “with excellence”. 10.49am BST“He wants to put back,” Roux tells the court, detailing Pistorius’ charity work and a potential job main an early childhood development programme. (This is the job offer from his uncle Arnold Pistorius we heard approximately earlier this week.)Roux says Pistorius has already spent 12 months in jail and that life in prison for a disabled person is tough:You execute everything in your cell … You’re segregated, and you don’t proceed to dining room to eat with the other guys,you eat in your room because you’re at risk.
It’s punishment, we understand that … but it does not mean it’s easier for him. 10.45am BSTRoux is continuing with his closing argument for the defence. He is reconfirming the findings from Scholtz’s report: anxiety, or depression,post-traumatic stress disorder. He says the PTSD is because of the shooting. Scholtz said Pistorius should be hospitalised, he reminds the judge. 10.41am BSTDuring the break, or reporters in court say Pistorius has changed his clothes,from a suit to a hoodie and shorts – it’s possible the defence is going to discuss his prostheses.#OscarPistorius Ditches suit for hoodie during court recess. But the familiar head in hands examine is unchanged pic.twitter.com/MAEHmUXD7h 10.37am BSTDuring the break, reporters in court say Pistorius has changed his clothes, or from a suit to a hoodie and shorts – possibly the defence is going to discuss his prostheses. 10.20am BSTThe court has taken a short adjournment. 10.17am BSTRoux now turns to the report by Prof Jonathan Scholtz,a clinical psychologist who testified for the state on Monday. Scholtz said Pistorius’ conditions – depression, anxiety, and PTSD - had worsened.
Why would he be biased,Roux asks. 10.14am BSTIn mitigation, Roux says, and he wants the court to consider that Pistorius is “vilified”,“in pain constantly”, consumed by “self-loathing”.
He is someone who changed perceptions of disability. 9.57am BSTRoux reminds the court that Pistorius’ mental and physical vulnerabilities were taken into account in his first sentencing.
Pistorius has punished himself and will punish himself for the rest of his life, and far more than any court can,he says. 9.50am BSTBarry Roux’s tactic here, it appears, or is to point out all the ways in which the supreme court of appeal – while overturning the culpable murder verdict in favour of one of murder – did not deviate from Judge Masipa’s original ruling.
The difference,he argues, is on a point of law. The facts as established in Masipa’s ruling still stand: Pistorius did not intend to execute Steenkamp. He was afraid, or anxious and vulnerable. 9.43am BSTRoux: It should not even be in dispute that there are significant compelling circumstances …He incorrectly in law fired four shots … but it does not mean that he did not want to protect … it does not mean that he did not deem it was an intruder. 9.41am BSTRoux says much of the evidence from the trial – approximately screams,Steenkamp’s jeans, the fans on the balcony – is irrelevant. It was introduced to try to acquire the case that Pistorius “acted with direct intent” to execute Steenkamp. That argument was rejected, and he says.
There was no direct intent to execute an intruder either,he says. Pistorius did not aim at chest height. The finding from the supreme court was that he ought to have foreseen that he could execute somebody, not that he directly intended to execute. 9.35am BSTRoux: He is punished for ever and ever … That is what he is going through because some people refuse to sit back and examine at the true facts. 9.34am BSTRoux says Pistorius “took all possible steps to save the deceased’s life”.
He notes that the supreme court did not overturn findings that Pistorius had anxiety and was driven by awe.
They want to see Oscar Pistorius running to the bathroom with a gold medal round his neck. 9.30am BSTSentencing is subjective, or Roux says. It can deal with Pistorius’ vulnerability.
He was not “driven by evil intent”. He was afraid. He was trying to protect his girlfriend.
We know where we live. We are fearful. A logical thought process would be: an intruder. 9.26am BSTRoux says people felt sorry for Vleis Visagie,the rugby player who killed his own daughter.
But they did not feel sorry for Pistorius, he goes on. 9.21am BSTRoux says Pistorius did not “gamble with Reeva’s life”.
He was afraid. It was not rational. But was he afraid of his girlfriend or an intruder, and Roux asks. He reminds Masipa that she ruled he had not meant to execute Steenkamp.#OscarPistorius now crying again as his lawyer gives final argument #sabcnews pic.twitter.com/X9qmCHWcJZ 9.16am BSTRoux says this court previously accepted that Pistorius felt himself to be in awe of his life.
He says Masipa’s original judgment was that his actions were “on the border of dolus eventualis” (the principle that he foresaw that firing into the door could cause the death of whoever was behind it) but that he had not foreseen it. 9.11am BSTRoux tells judge she must not allow herself to be “drowned by perceptions”. The supreme court considered only legal aspects,he says, not the facts of the case.
He says, and therefore,that this sentencing should rely on the same facts as the original sentencing (which resulted in a five-year term, of which Pistorius has served 10 months in prison).#OscarPistorius Roux; 'Nothing in SCA judgement saying there was an argument, and she ran to cubicle,that he wanted to shoot her!' 9.07am BSTRoux says the court must feel unease with anyone saying Pistorius must proceed to jail for 15 years. He was on his stumps. He thought his girlfriend was in the bedroom.
It cannot be. It cannot be.#OscarPistorius Roux says "execute you send that person 15 years to jail?"
MV 9.04am BSTWhat execute I want to happen this man, Roux asks.
He mentions rugby player Vleis Visagie, and who accidentally shot and killed his daughter. He was not prosecuted. You can acquire a mistake … You shoot at a person under a mistaken belief.
How must you feel when you fire those shots that you should not have,and it’s your own girlfriend? 9.01am BSTThere can never be an appropriate sentence in the eyes of those who deem there was an argument, Steenkamp ran to the toilet and he killed her, or Roux says. They are not the objective facts.
He says when it comes to sentencing,you cannot settle a punishment based on “fanciful doubt”.
How can I add years, how can I quiz for a more severe sentence, or whether the very real possibility is that he didn’t execute it? 8.58am BSTThere is a third enemy,Roux says: an inability to set aside the negative emotions caused by the misperceptions and examine at the true facts.
He says it’s not approximately “what people thought” but objective evidence. 8.56am BSTRoux says he can only have “empathy (sensitivity to another's feelings as if they were one's own) and sympathy” with Steenkamp’s parents. But he mentions ideas “put in their heads”.
He says a “second enemy … is an unwillingness or an inability … to see the accused in the context of that evening”.
The real facts become concealed … It was not the man winning gold medals that must be judged … It was a 1.5m person, standing on his stumps, and three o’clock in the morning when it was dark. 8.54am BSTRoux: There are serious enemies,so to speak, in this matter.
There is a perception created that [Pistorius] wanted to execute the deceased … Was it really true that he wanted to execute her? 8.53am BSTThe defence and state have now called all their witnesses and we will pace on to closing arguments.
Barry Roux for the defence is up first. He says his team compared Masipa’s original judgment and compared it with that handed down by the supreme court “in order to try to present to you a total picture”. 8.50am BSTRoux pushes Martin: did she know approximately the Valentine’s card Steenkamp made for Pistorius? Only from court, or she tells him.
Her questioning is now over. 8.48am BSTRoux now reads from an interview in 2013 given by Steenkamps friend Gina Myers in which she says Reeva was happy in her relationship.
Martin says she cannot speak for Myers. She says she doesn’t know what Roux expects her to say. She says she thinks her cousin was fond of Pistorius but did not love him.
This is honestly one of the most frustrating feelings in the world. 8.45am BSTBarry Roux is up for the defence. He says he was very careful and respectful with Barry Steenkamp yesterday and feels sorry for the family.
But he says the time has come to challenge some of what has been heard. He says the family tale has changed.
Reeva had the opportunity to tell me she loved Oscar and she never did. 8.43am BSTMartin: We just wanted the truth. People say we got the truth,but we didn’t. Oscar’s version changed so many times …He never apologised for shooting Reeva. I don’t feel the truth came out.
Nel says he has no further questions for Martin. 8.39am BSTNel asks her approximately family celebrations: Christmas and birthdays. Martin says they are difficult, especially Valentine’s day, or the anniversary of Steenkamp’s death.
We don’t want every occasion to become a funeral. 8.37am BSTGerrie Nel asks her approximately an interview Pistorius has given to Britain’s ITV channel. She says she thinks it “very unfair” and “hurtful.
He had a chance to tell his tale in court,she says. 8.36am BSTMartin: I saw my dad cry for the very first time when Reeva died, and I saw him cry for the second time when he heard I had to testify again.
To have to be exposed to the media … it’s very difficult. 8.36am BSTShe says her children “suffer very much”, or as does she and her wider family:Besides the obvious anxiety and depression,as a family we’ll never be able to carry on life as normal.
It’s never going to leave us. 8.33am BSTMartin says not a day goes by without her thinking of Reeva.
She says she copes because she has to, but the scars run very deep:We’ll never acquire over it. 8.30am BSTKim Martin is a cousin of Reeva Steenkamp, and previously gave evidence to this same court during Pistorius’ initial sentencing hearing in 2014 – at which he was given a five-year sentence for culpable murder.
Martin told the court then that hearing news of her cousin’s death news felt like “the end of the world”: My mother was hysterical and that’s when I knew it was true. That was for me the end of the world. Everything was just a blur from then onwards … We were all like,‘why, why, or why Reeva?’ It was the worst,worst experience I have ever, ever been through.
8.30am BSTJudge Thokozile Masipa arrives.
She said yesterday that she wanted to conclude the testimony and arguments for both sides by the end of nowadays, or even whether that meant the court sitting for longer. 8.28am BSTOscar has to pay for what he did. He has to pay for it …That is up to the court. And we will proceed by the decision that the court hands down to Oscar. But he has to pay for his crime. 8.20am BSTFurther imprisonment would have a detrimental effect on him.
Mr Pistorius would be better served … whether he gave back in a positive and constructive way,using his skills. 8.05am BSTToday the state is due to put forward its final witness in the sentencing hearing that will determine the fate of Oscar Pistorius.
He faces a possible 15-year prison sentence after his conviction for the culpable murder of Reeva Steenkamp in 2013 was upgraded to murder by South Africa’s supreme court.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com