SCA Sentencing Appeal of Oscar Pistorius – LIVE Blog – November 3, 2017

Court to hear the case starting at 10:00am local time today. Live feed on ENCA: https://www.enca.com/south-africa/supreme-court-to-hear-why-oscar-should-serve-more-time

Follow @HiRezLife for live tweets

JUDGES:

Ronnie Bosielo, Willie Seriti, Pieter Meyer, Colin Lamont, Fikile Mokgohloa

LAWYERS:

Andrea Johnson for prosecution

Barry Roux for defense

UPDATES FROM COURT….

10:00am – Professor James Grant is once again assisting the prosecution

10:05am – Advocate Johnson is up first. Justice Bosielo seems supportive of Masipa. He raises his voices and says Oscar has apologized enough, and Steenkamps accepted.

Johnson: “One really doesn’t know what his [Oscar’s] explanation is…”

10:18am – Advocate Johnson addresses what Oscar could have done more – she raises the point that feeling sorry for oneself is not remorse

10:20am – Johnson is reminding the SCA what their findings were. She’s fired up, and arguing passionately as she reads from court record.

10:24am – Johnson: “I refer this court to its judgement – as a matter of common sense at the time the fatal shots were fired the possibility the person behind the door would be killed was clearly an obvious result.”

Can barely keep up with Johnson…she’s racing through the findings, and judges are racing to keep up with her, flipping through the papers. Only 2 judges have spoken so far.

10:28am – Johnson says dolus eventualis is serious and the mitigating factors delivered by the defense were not sufficient – there were no substantial compelling factors why Oscar received a less than 15 years sentence

10:35am – Johnson says Judge Masipa elevated Pistorius’ regret

10:37am – Justice Meyer: “Recognition must be given for time already served” #bullshit

These judges are coming at Johnson hard

10:42am – Johnson says Oscar never explained why he didn’t fire a warning shot, nor can he justify it. Even if he thought in his mind there was an intruder, he can’t explain the threat he faced. He could not tell the court what the danger was, yet he fired four shots.

Johnson wants the court to recognize the brutality of this death.

Roux listens with eyes closed, hand to face, deep in thought

Johnson: “No acceptable reason has been advanced by the accused on why he killed [Reeva]” #hernamewasReeva

10:54am Johnson: “the court misdirected itself by considering rehabilitation as a factor to deviate from minimum sentence”

Johnson speaks the whopping obvious – the first step to proper rehab is acknowledging what you have done. Oscar has never acknowledged what he’s done… he’s made excuses, sobbed for himself, changed his stories, changed his defenses.

Simply put – there is absolutely nothing that justifies a lesser sentence in this case.

11:02am – Johnson says Reeva had her whole life ahead of her. “No reasonable court” would have imposed 6 year sentence. It is shockingly light. Ends by saying the court [Masipa] misdirected itself.

Court adjourns for tea break. Such a civilized thing for such uncivilized business.

From Nick: “Kinda weird seeing both counsels hanging out during adjournment. Like a family of crows.”

11:30am Roux is up. Says he’s responding to the remorse and regret argument. Roux wants to start here.

Roux argues Oscar wasn’t convicted of murdering Reeva. Which is unfortunately true.

Meyer: “Consequences were dire” There is no explanation for firing 4 shots.

Seriti: “Which version [of Oscar’s] do we choose?”

The justices are really pushing Roux… WHY shoot 4 times?

Roux starts now with the “slow burn” argument that he used at the last appeal proceedings. Disabled Oscar has had fears brewing his whole life. He argues, Oscar has an anxiety disorder.

Meyer: “Why impose a death sentence on who was in that cubicle?”

10:43am – Roux: “I cannot stand here and justify the 4 shots. What I’m trying to do is explain the state of mind. Maybe if I’m able-bodied, and I don’t suffer from anxiety disorder, and I get there, I would be far more calculated, and think better but that person in that situation did not – he was just firing. It was his reaction as a result of something he had no control over. It was not a person standing there with confidence, that feels he can protect himself, that feels he can run away.”

Roux talks himself in circles. You can’t have a terrified, incompetent, defenseless person then running after & confronting a potentially deadly person. You also can’t have a person who’s completely not in control of his thinking and faculties, then consciously deciding what he needs to do to defend himself.

Justices are also showing Roux little mercy.

Roux: Cannot hand down 15 years to a person in that situation that evening. He argues, Masipa did consider the four shots, the cubicle, the shooter and the circumstances.

Roux says Masipa was unfairly criticized for the sentence she handed down. Justices debate with him over the issue of retribution when imposing sentences, especially for grave crimes.

Meyer wants to know why Oscar didn’t testify on his own behalf – after the murder conviction, for his sentencing. Roux wants to pawn it off on the state of his mind, but even the justices can see that’s rubbish.

Seriti points out the obvious – Oscar didn’t testify because he told so many different stories, he was afraid of another cross-exam. But Roux says he suffers severe PTSD and it was getting worse at that time.

Let’s take a moment to remember, Oscar’s ITV interview – which was given/aired PRIOR to Oscar’s appeal.

Roux ends with: “We submit that leave be refused”

Johnson back up and reads from Masipa’s judgement. Even Masipa noted she felt unease over the witness after witness giving testimony about Oscar’s vulnerability – in other words, it was over-emphasized.

Ah, thank you Ms. Johnson. She brings up Oscar’s television “expose”

Johnson repeats herself saying there is a lack of an admission in terms of acknowledging the wrong and Bosielo cuts her off. He says “don’t spoil the good point you made”

Johnson: “This court is duty bound because there were misdirections. This court has the power to interfere”

Bosielo swiftly ends the hearing and judgement is reserved to future date.