Get more Mail & Guardian
Subscribe or Login

New sentence may be end of the road for Oscar

The case of State vs Pistorius was, at its root, a simple one involving the application of a concept of criminal law that has been employed without much fuss for decades. Perhaps it was the celebrity nature of this trial, or the desire of self-appointed experts giving their views in the media, that the case was presented as a landmark legal problem. Whatever the reason, many of these “experts” ensured that a simple case transmogrified in the public mind into a dispute of grave legal complexity.

Judge Eric Leach, on behalf of a unanimous Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal, confirmed that the applicable legal concept of dolus eventualis was clear and relatively simple: “In contrast to dolus directus, in a case of murder where the object and purpose of the perpetrator is specifically to cause death, a person’s intention in the form of dolus eventualis arises if the perpetrator foresees the risk of death occurring, but nevertheless continues to act appreciating that death might well occur, therefore ‘gambling’, as it were, with the life of the person against whom the act is directed.

“It therefore consists of two parts: foresight of the possibility of death occurring and reconciliation with that foreseen possibility … It is necessary to stress that the wrongdoer does not have to foresee death as a probable consequence of his or her actions. It is sufficient that the possibility of death is foreseen, which, coupled with a disregard of that consequence, is sufficient to constitute the necessary criminal intent.”

This is not new law. It cast upon the trial court the duty to answer one core question: “Did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless to whether death ensued or not?”

Unfortunately, the trial court arrived at the wrong answer because it asked the incorrect question. According to Leach, “the finding that the accused had not subjectively foreseen that he would kill whoever was behind the door and that if he had intended to do so he would have aimed higher than he did, conflates the test of what is required to establish dolus directus with the assessment of dolus eventualis”.

The overwhelming issue before the trial court was not whether the accused had foreseen that Reeva Steenkamp might have been in the toilet when Pistorius fired the fatal shots, but whether there was a person behind the door who might possibly be killed by his action. Expressed differently, that Pistorius might have had an incorrect appreciation of who was in the toilet does not determine whether he had the requisite criminal intent.

Thus the trial court erred in law when, as Leach said, it confined “its assessment of dolus eventualis to whether the accused had foreseen that it was Reeva behind the door … In his own version, when he thought there was an intruder in the toilet, the accused armed himself with a heavy-calibre firearm loaded with ammunition specifically designed for self-defence, screamed at the intruder to get out of his house, and proceeded forward to the bathroom in order to confront whoever might be there. He is a person well trained in the use of firearms and was holding his weapon at the ready in order to shoot. He paused at the entrance to the bathroom and when he became aware that there was a person in the toilet cubicle, he fired four shots through the door. And he never offered an acceptable explanation for having done so.”

Our law is not so naive that it simply accepts that when a person (even a paraplegic, who is more vulnerable) arms himself with a heavy weapon and bullets designed to cause maximum injury and fires a series of shots, narrowly grouped, through a door and into a confined space, knowing full well that there is a human being there, he does not have the requisite intent to be found guilty of murder.

Pistorius raised the question of putative private defence – he thought he was acting in self-defence against an intruder. Reflecting accepted legal doctrine, Leach said that “the defence of putative private defence implies rational but mistaken thought. Even if the accused believed that there was someone else in the toilet, his expressed fear that such a person was a danger to his life was not the product of any rational thought.”

We must await Judge Thokozile Masipa’s decision because she must now sentence Pistorius afresh. What is surely certain is that he will receive a lengthy custodial sentence. Less certain is whether Pistorius, should he seek leave to do so, will succeed in appealing to the Constitutional Court. His conviction is not based on a controversial principle. All the appeal court did was to apply the correct legal principles to the facts of the case. And that means the legal road may well end after sentencing.

Subscribe for R500/year

Thanks for enjoying the Mail & Guardian, we’re proud of our 36 year history, throughout which we have delivered to readers the most important, unbiased stories in South Africa. Good journalism costs, though, and right from our very first edition we’ve relied on reader subscriptions to protect our independence.

Digital subscribers get access to all of our award-winning journalism, including premium features, as well as exclusive events, newsletters, webinars and the cryptic crossword. Click here to find out how to join them and get a 57% discount in your first year.

Serjeant At The
Guest Author
Bar Author
Guest Author

Related stories


If you’re reading this, you clearly have great taste

If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to the Mail & Guardian for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week, and get more great reads.

Already a subscriber? Sign in here


Subscribers only

Fears of violence persist a year after the murder of...

The court battle to stop coal mining in rural KwaZulu-Natal has heightened the sense of danger among environmental activists

Data shows EFF has lower negative sentiment online among voters...

The EFF has a stronger online presence than the ANC and Democratic Alliance

More top stories

High court reinstates Umgeni Water board

The high court has ruled that the dissolution of the water entity’s board by Minister Lindiwe Sisulu was unfair and unprocedural

Mkhize throws the book at the Special Investigating Unit

It’s a long shot at political redemption for the former health minister and, more pressingly, a bid to avert criminal charges

Pockets of instability in Kenya are underpinned by unequal development

Stability in Kenya hinges on a just, equitable distribution of resources, and a commitment to progress human development for the marginalised

press releases

Loading latest Press Releases…