Oscar Pistorius prosecutors appeal against ‘shockingly light’ jail term

Oscar Pistorius’s five-year prison term for killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was “shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by any reasonable court”, according to prosecutors who have filed for leave to appeal against the sentence and conviction.
Judge Thokozile Masipa “erred in overemphasising the personal circumstances” of the double-amputee athlete, as well as the fact that he seemed remorseful about shooting four times through a toilet door at his home in Pretoria on Valentine’s Day last year, the legal papers say.
In September, Masipa acquitted Pistorius of murder but found him guilty of culpable homicide, the South African equivalent of manslaughter, in a judgment criticised by some legal experts. Last month, at the end of an eight-month trial televised worldwide, she jailed the Paralympian for five years, though this could potentially become house arrest in less than a year.
On Tuesday, as expected, South Africa’s national prosecuting authority filed for leave to appeal against the sentence and conviction, requesting permission from Masipa to review her decision “based on the question of law”.
The application, addressed to the high court registrar in Pretoria and Pistorius’s defence team, notes that the sprinter knew there was a person behind the toilet door and chose to use a firearm, firing not one but four shots, and there was no room for escape for the person behind the door.
It states: “The question should be posed if the court correctly applied the principles of dolus eventualis to the accepted facts”, referring to a type of murder in which a perpetrator objectively foresees the possibility of his act causing death and persists regardless of the consequences.
Pistorius has always maintained that he mistook Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, for an intruder and feared for his life. But the papers note that the court correctly found that he presented a “plethora of defences” and argue that these were “mutually destructive and irreconcilable”. They also quote the court’s finding that Pistorius was “a very poor witness”.
The application, signed by the chief prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, and his deputy Andrea Johnson, also argues that the sentence of five years for the “murder” of Steenkamp “in the circumstances of this case is shockingly light, inappropriate and would not have been imposed by a reasonable court”.
It continues: “The honourable judge erred in overemphasising the personal circumstances of the accused and the fact that the accused was suffering from post-traumatic stress, was anxious and ‘seems remorseful’.
“The honourable judge erred in not appropriately taking into account the consequences of the accused’s actions. Not enough emphasis was placed on the horrendous manner in which the deceased died, coupled with the gruesome injuries she sustained when the accused shot and killed her.”
Masipa also erred in overemphasising the purpose of rehabilitation and reformation at the cost of retribution, the prosecutors contend. “We will argue that the sentence is inappropriate and shockingly light for someone that killed an innocent person with gross negligence where his conduct bordered on dolus eventualis.”
They note that, under the criminal procedure act, Pistorius will qualify to be released from prison under correctional supervision after serving “a mere 10 months”. There is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different finding, they say.
Steenkamp’s mother, June, said the appeal was a matter for state prosecutors rather than her family.
“This is now their job,” she told the Guardian. “They’re not happy with the verdict and sentence because they feel there were mistakes made. It’s not really going to affect me. It’s going to affect Oscar maybe but that’s not my business.”
She said the prosecutor had been hugely disappointed by Masipa’s verdict. “He did his utmost best. He’s devastated now, Gerrie Nel, but I can only say that he pulled his guts out for Reeva. He always spoke of her and he was doing his best. He did the best job anybody could do.”
Masipa will consider the appeal and rule in a court hearing if it should be referred to the supreme court of appeal. If she decides against, the state still has an option to petition the supreme court to hear the case.
Cases heard by the supreme court, in Bloemfontein, are presided over by a panel of three to five judges, depending on the nature of a case. Pistorius, who turns 28 this month, would face a minimum
of 15 years in prison if convicted of murder on appeal.
Source:theguardian.com