THE HIGH COURT OF SUPREME JUSTICE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
And
OSCAR LEORNARD
CARL PISTORIOUS
_____________________________________________________________________________
Date of hearing: As early as Valentine Day 2013
Date of delivery: Today
Neutral citation: This
judgment may be referred to as The State v Pistorius (1) [2014] HCSJ 977
(RSA).
_____________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________
THE COURT
1.
This black and peaceful court has had enough time to consider the
verdict of what many have dubbed the Trial of the Century. For the first time
in our history we have allowed the glare of the television light to intrude our
ill-equipped court and to some extent has left our court interpreters
stuttering for loss of words. This trial has been beamed to the world, and has
been religiously followed on twitter @OscarTrial199 and
many social network platforms. We are convinced as the Court that so much
evidence has been presented in and outside the Court. We will not continue
listening to the neither defence nor prosecution. They have certainly improved
their CVs with intense presentation of their clients. In the main, many have
been inspired to take on the law degree so as to pursue careers as lawyers. We
hope the new LLB review will not disenfranchise mostly black kids from becoming
lawyers. The profession at the moment is “white”. This verdict will put the
nation to work again. Productivity has declined ever since the trial began and
drivers have been issued with fines for “twitting and driving”. It’s time we
cut the chase, and we will not encumber your eyes with legal jargon to
understand this judgment.
2. The accused in casu is a world icon. Many families
have had their sons christened “Oscar” after the “blade-runner” had defied all odds. Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius is a
South African sprint runner born on November 22, 1986 .Although both of Pistorius' legs were amputated below
the knee when he was 11 months old, he competes in events for single below-knee
amputees and for able-bodied athletes. After becoming a
Paralympics champion, Pistorius attempted to enter able-bodied international
competition. Pistorius eventually prevailed in this legal dispute. At the 2011 World Championships in Athletics,
Pistorius became the first amputee to win an able-bodied world track medal. At
the 2012 Summer Olympics, Pistorius became the first double leg amputee to
participate in the Olympics when he entered the men's 400 metres and 4 × 400 metres
relay races. At the 2012
Summer Paralympics, Pistorius won gold medals in
the men's 400-metre race and in the 4 × 100 metres relay,
setting world records in both events. He also took silver in the 200 metres
race, having set a world record in the semi-final.
3.
Pistorius has been the subject of criticism because of claims that his
artificial limbs give him an advantage over runners with natural ankles and
feet. He runs with J-shaped carbon-fibre prosthetics
called the "Flex-Foot Cheetah" developed by biomedical
engineer Van Phillips and manufactured by
Össur. However the blade-runner did fight this contention to the bitter end. His
focus throughout this appeal, which is outside the scope of this judgment, has
been to ensure that disabled athletes be given the chance to compete and
compete fairly with able-bodied athletes.
4. The
facts of the case are in no doubt. In the early morning of Thursday, 14
February 2013, Pistorius shot and killed South African model Reeva Steenkamp, his girlfriend
of three months, at his home in Pretoria.Pistorius acknowledges that he shot
Steenkamp to death and says that he mistook her for an intruder. In an effort
to understand what the accused version is or was (for he kept changing the
version), the Court for the first time will have a graphic presentation of what
the accused
says took place on that fateful Valentine’s
Day.
says took place on that fateful Valentine’s
Day.
5.
Let me hasten to say, the experience was traumatic for the accused. Ever
since then, he is given to crying when he is asked of how he killed the deceased.
We have also noted in him a tendency to vomit when the picture of the deceased
is shown to him. This Court will forever keep the green bucket, as a souvenir
to other judges who should make sure that such props should be part of court –room
drama. We have also sent the accused to undergo psychiatric evaluation to
establish if he was criminally responsible for shooting Reeva Steenkamp.The
Court is reliably informed that the environment at Weskoppies psychiatric
hospital was not conducive for someone like Oscar Pistorious.This is because
all the doctors, despite few disagreements, came to the conclusion that the accused
was not mentally incapacitated when he shot his girlfriend to death. The report
speaks loudly that the accused was and is capable of appreciating the
wrongfulness of his act.
6.
The accused faces the following
charges:
·
Premeditated murder, coupled with a gun charge wherein the State argues that the unlawful use and possession
of that firearm contributed to his "intention to kill a human being”.
·
In the alternative, the accused faces a competent verdict in the form of
culpable homicide.
·
A contravention of Section 90 of the Firearms Control Act no 60 of 2000
wherein
·
"The accused did unlawfully have in his possession of 38 x 38
rounds without being the holder of a.) A license in respect of a firearm
capable of discharging that ammunition; b.) A permit to possess the ammunition;
a dealer’s license, manufacturer’s license, gunsmith’s license, import, exports,
or in transit permit or transports permit issued in terms of this Act."
The first of the additional charges against Oscar Pistorius came as a
result of an incident that occurred
on 11 January 2013 when he reportedly accidentally fired a gun in a packed
restaurant of more than 200 people, and near a table where children were dining.
The second additional count against Oscar according involves an incident where
he shot a gun out of the roof of a car when he was with his then girlfriend
Samantha Taylor and his friend Darren Fresco on the night of 30 November 2012.
In reaching our verdict we have been
guided by the legal convictions of the community (boni mores) and the open
justice system. Justice should be seen to be done and must be carried out efficiently,
fairly and without prejudice. While we understand the presumption of innocence principle
(ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui
negat), the accused gave a number of conflicting statements in his defence.
What is glaringly obvious is his amazing ability to shift the blame on everyone
around him, including his Counsel. Asked about the ammunition he used to shoot
through the bathroom door and which killed Reeva, the accused said the
ammunition belonged to his estranged father Henke.The father of the accused has
not been seen at court since the trial started. With regards at shooting at the
perceived intruder, Oscar maintains that he shot at the direction of the
bathroom door, not with the intention of killing anyone….but involuntarily.
Strange! And at one time we are told that a friend by the name Darren Fresco had
to take blame in the Tasha’s restaurant so as to diffuse the hype around the
paralympian.He still maintains the gun went off on its own. What a miracle!
In reaching our decision we have
analysed the following crucial points to the case.
a. The killing. The
most important facts of the case are not in doubt: Oscar Pistorius, the
double-amputee Olympian ,shot through a bathroom door at his home in Pretoria
and killed his girlfriend, 29-year-old model and law school graduate Reeva
Steenkamp.The question for determination is: Was it cold-blooded murder, or did Pistorius think he was shooting at an
intruder? This court will not accept the fictitious version that the gun went
off involuntarily!
b. The lead detective charged
with seven attempted murders. Detective Hilton Botha admitted to shoddy
police work in the bail application. It was revealed that Botha is facing seven
attempted murder charges stemming from a 2011 incident in which he and two
other officers shot at a minivan. Reports say the men were chasing down a
murder suspect. The charges had been dropped but were reinstated 10 days before
Steen Kamp’s death. These events, nor Botha’s jacket will not blind this court
in reaching a verdict. It remains a fact that Oscar shot and killed Reeva.No amount
of evidence tampering will distort the image of a dying Reeva in Oscar arms!
The court assessors,@keddah83 and @CuteLawyer are all in agreement that Botha's past is "completely unrelated" to
the trial. So is the South African common man in the street!
c. Police blunders. This
trial has exposed the South African Police Service. They are a lot of blunders
that calls for an overhaul in which the police handles the crime scene and exhibits.
With the exception of one Captain Mangena who gave ballistics evidence for the State,
it is is indeed glaringly true that the police messed up in their investigation
of the Oscar murder case. It certainly gave Counsel Barry Roux a lot of mileage
and his popularity soared as he heavily relied on the loopholes. Botha
initially said the two witnesses who heard screaming from Pistorius' house on
the night of the killing were 600 meters away. He later changed the distance to
300 meters. Other admissions: Investigators missed a spent bullet in the toilet
and didn't take pictures of a box of bullets but snapped photos of Pistorius' medals.
What a farce!
d. Was he wearing his
prosthetic legs? Pistorius says he walked to the bathroom on his
stumps, and then shot through the door. After that the accused says he “rushed
back into the bedroom, screamed for help, and put on” his prosthetic legs.
However a police forensic analyst, Police Colonel Johannes Vermeulen
emphatically told the court that Oscar was “on his stumps” when he tried to
smash down his locked toilet door with a cricket bat to reach his dying girlfriend.
This contradicts the accused bail application version. Colonel Johannes Vermeulen
said the angle of the bullet holes suggest Pistorius was standing tall on his
prosthetics. The police theory gives credence to a charge of premeditation. If
Pistorius had time to put on his prosthetics, then he wasn't getting out of bed
quickly to pursue an intruder.
e. The empty bladder debate.
An autopsy revealed Steenkamp's bladder was empty when she was killed. Since it
would be highly unlikely for a person's bladder to be fully empty at 3 a.m.,
the defence says this shows Steenkamp was using the bathroom before the
killing. The theory floated: She locked herself inside after hearing Pistorius
yelling at an intruder. As an afterthought one of my assessors @keddah83
asked me a question which was never answered in this trial…..did they have sex?
Only God knows!
f. Bloody cricket bat.
"Was Steenkamp's skull crushed with bloodied cricket bat 'found' at
Pistorius's house?" The amount of blood on the cricket bat is so unsettling.
One would quickly think that the accused used the bat. But there is ample evidence
to the contrary. What remains a mystery is whether the witnesses heard the
gunshot sounds or cricket bat sounds. All the same we hold the view that the “blood
curdling screams”, heard by the neighbours must also have been heard by Oscar
Pistorious.
g. Drugs? Botha said
police found two boxes of testosterone, syringes and needles in a bedroom
cabinet. Later, a police spokesman admitted the contents of the box were
unknown. Testosterone is a banned substance by the IOC.
The defence says the boxes contained an herbal remedy commonly
used for sexual enhancement purposes. Two questions come to mind? Was Oscar
using drugs during his competitions? And that lingering question…..did they
have sex on the fateful night? The autopsy is silent in that regard.
h.)Did Oscar snap? Evidence was led of a rocky relationship between
Oscar and Reeva.The whatssapp messages read in court do show a jealous Oscar,
who always wanted attention in this relationship. He never gave Reeva time to
express the wild spirit in her. She felt inhibited, stifled and muffled in the
short love affair. She could not express herself! This relationship was always
about Oscar, Oscar, Oscar, Oscar! Now
there is a possibility that the two had an argument, probably after Reeva had
received a message from a former boyfriend. She insisted of leaving and
threatening to end the affair. Oscar could not take it.Reeva ran to the
bathroom to seek refuge! She screamed for help, and Oscar aimed at the door….shot
four times at the door instantly killing the petrified Reeva.After a lucidum
intervallum, Oscar came to his senses and realised the import of his actions.
7. Having
considered all these factors we came to the conclusion that on the the first
charge of premeditated murder, the accused is GUILTY. The accused must have known that Reeeva Steenkamp was
behind that bathroom door. In fact as Advocate Nel indicated, Reeva was talking
to Oscar whilst locked in the toilet. And in return Oscar was shouting to Reeva
to get out before he released the trigger. Even before Oscar went to the
bathroom as he claimed, he should have alerted Reeva to the presence of a
possible intruder by waking her up or at least locating her position. In any
case, any lovebirds on a valentine day would cling together if such event happens.
Where was the Valentine spirit in this house……I keep asking did they have sex?
I doubt!
8. When Oscar shouted for Reeva to call the
police before he started firing, there was no way she would have kept quiet.
She could have responded to him and alert him that he was in the bathroom. The
female assessor in this coram asked:
Why did she lock herself in the bathroom taking a routine pee in the middle of
the night in an en suite bathroom leading to a bedroom she shares with somebody
she so dearly loved? …..I keep asking the question…did they have sex?
9. On the gun
charge, where the accused discharged a firearm in a crowded restaurant, this
black and peaceful Court finds the accused GUILTY.
He is a danger to the society and should learn that as a role model he has to
lead an exemplary life. If in this country, we allow everyone to carry his gun
to social outings we are creating anarchy in the State. This is unacceptable,
considering we also take our children to such outings. What is disturbing for
this court is that the accused could not take responsibility for his actions.Infact
he lays the blame on Fresco so that his image is protected. This court will not
accept such attitude. With regards to the last charge where the accused
discharged a firearm through the sunroof of his vehicle, the State failed to
prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Oscar was responsible for the act. So
that charge will not stick.
10. The following
order is thus given
·
30 years, imprisonment with hard labour for the murder charge.
·
5 years imprisonment for the gun charge in contravention of section 90
of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.
·
No parole and suspended sentence
FOR THE COURT
Blaka J @blakaworld1 *Mutsvara Shepherd*
