State prosecutor Gerrie Nel said the court had erred in its application of the principles of dolus eventualis, because the accused should have known that firing four shots through the door would result in death, even if he did not “wish the result”. Pistorius should have been found guilty of murder.
It’s inconceivable that he had any intention other than to kill that person or accepted that he may. It is an erroneous application of dolus eventualis.
Nel said the five-year sentence imposed was “shockingly inappropriate” and a different court would be likely to impose a harsher punishment:
It’s inconceivable that he had any intention other than to kill that person or accepted that he may. It is an erroneous application of dolus eventualis.
Nel said the five-year sentence imposed was “shockingly inappropriate” and a different court would be likely to impose a harsher punishment:
Thokozile Masipa
The sentence for what the accused did is inappropriate. It does not fit the crime.
Nel said the element of mercy shown by the court in its sentencing was “over-exaggerated”. Pistorius should have received a 10-year sentence.
There was a dispute over the relevance of case law, in particularthe Seekoei judgment. The defence said Seekoei established thatthe state cannot appeal when an accused has been convicted on a lesser charge. Nel said it was not relevant because the state is contesting the murder acquittal, not the culpable homicide conviction.
Barry Roux, for the defence, said the appeal had no prospect of success. He said the state had not got the result it wanted but was trying to secure an appeal based on issues of fact, not law, which is not permitted.
Roux disputed claims that Pistorius would be out of prison after 10 months:
It is incorrect to say that it’s a light sentence – it’s not.
The state also wants to appeal the possession of ammunition charge, of which Pistorius was acquitted. The defence opposes this request.
Judge Masipa said she would give her ruling on Tuesday at 9.30am (7.30am GMT).
Nel said the element of mercy shown by the court in its sentencing was “over-exaggerated”. Pistorius should have received a 10-year sentence.
There was a dispute over the relevance of case law, in particularthe Seekoei judgment. The defence said Seekoei established thatthe state cannot appeal when an accused has been convicted on a lesser charge. Nel said it was not relevant because the state is contesting the murder acquittal, not the culpable homicide conviction.
Barry Roux, for the defence, said the appeal had no prospect of success. He said the state had not got the result it wanted but was trying to secure an appeal based on issues of fact, not law, which is not permitted.
Roux disputed claims that Pistorius would be out of prison after 10 months:
It is incorrect to say that it’s a light sentence – it’s not.
The state also wants to appeal the possession of ammunition charge, of which Pistorius was acquitted. The defence opposes this request.
Judge Masipa said she would give her ruling on Tuesday at 9.30am (7.30am GMT).
Barry Roux
No comments:
Post a Comment