1084 users online (218 members and 866 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 78 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1160
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Who Dat Nation
    Posts
    29,857

    Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

    Pistorius could return to jail with appeal ruling this week
    Reuters JOHANNESBURG
    Sports | Tue Dec 1, 2015 12:47pm EST

    South Africa's Oscar Pistorius will find out if he will return to jail when the Supreme Court of Appeal announces on Thursday if it will scale up the track star's conviction for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp from manslaughter to murder.

    The Paralympic gold medallist was released on parole in October after serving a fifth of his five-year prison term for the "culpable homicide" of Steenkamp, whom he killed by firing four shots through a locked toilet door on Valentine's Day 2013.

    Prosecutors said Pistorius, 29, should be convicted of murder and sent back to jail because he knew the person behind the door could be killed when he fired. A murder conviction would result in a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison.

    "The judgment will be delivered at 09:45 (0745 GMT) on 3 December 2015 at the Supreme Court of Appeal," the court said in a statement on Tuesday.

    Thread 68


    Link to Oscar Pistorius Forum Index
    Last edited by Coldpizza; 12-19-2015 at 08:53 AM.
    __________________________________
    Muddy water in the street
    ; Muddy water 'round my feet... as sung by the inimitable Bessie Smith, "Muddy Water (A Mississippi Moan)"

    WEBSLEUTHS ON FACEBOOK



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CA always, FL now
    Posts
    17,715

    Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

    Oscar Pistorius granted bail after murder conviction


    Link

    South African Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been granted bail while he awaits sentence for murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in 2013.
    Judges changed his conviction from manslaughter to murder last week. He has already served one year in prison.
    Pistorius now faces a minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment - to be set after a hearing on 18 April 2016.
    He will also appeal against his murder conviction in the Constitutional Court, his lawyer has said.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,263
    OP and his legal team are considering appealing to the ConCourt on the basis that he didn't get a fair trial. The following is from a ConCourt judgment.

    Bogaards vs The State (Decided on: 28 September 2012)

    The right to a fair trial

    49. In this case, the right relied upon is the right to a fair trial as articulated in section 35(3) of the Constitution. Section 35(3) sets out, in a non-exhaustive list, the components of the right to a fair trial. It provides:

    “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right—

    (a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
    (b) to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
    (c) to a public trial before an ordinary court;
    (d) to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
    (e) to be present when being tried;
    (f) to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    (g) to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    (h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
    (i) to adduce and challenge evidence;
    (j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
    (k) to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
    (l) not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
    (m) not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
    (n) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and
    (o) of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.”

    70. ...“It is clear also that fairness is not a one-way street conferring an unlimited right on an accused to demand the most favourable possible treatment.”85

    Furthermore, in Jaipal, this Court referred to the need for—

    “fairness to the public as represented by the State. It has to instil confidence in the criminal justice system with the public, including those close to the accused, as well as those distressed by the audacity and horror of crime.”

    http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2012/23.html

    How was OP treated unfairly?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367
    The problem I have with an ‘appeal on a fair trial’ is the time limit to appeal on such has long expired. Plus such matters should have been taken to the SCA in the first instance.

    My understanding is an appeal to the CC can only be as a result of the judgment of the SCA

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,524
    Does he mean that he didn't get a 'fair trial' at the SCA? Is he saying the SCA has acted like a trial court by ruling on the PPD? I haven't noticed specific mention of an unfair trial in the documents we've seen so far, did I miss it?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortoise View Post
    Does he mean that he didn't get a 'fair trial' at the SCA? Is he saying the SCA has acted like a trial court by ruling on the PPD? I haven't noticed specific mention of an unfair trial in the documents we've seen so far, did I miss it?
    The affidavit won't include everything. We will have to wait until Notice of Grounds of Appeal are filed. This article has more info.

    http://www.rdm.co.za/politics/2015/1...ourt-will-fail

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    The affidavit won't include everything. We will have to wait until Notice of Grounds of Appeal are filed. This article has more info.

    http://www.rdm.co.za/politics/2015/1...ourt-will-fail
    Thanks JJ.

    I think the gist of it is that he (OP) is saying SCA erred, hence the unfairness. The arrogance never ceases and never ceases to amaze. I think the time is long since passed where he can say he was prejudiced by the trial being televised.

    As I said before, his multiple defences have come back to bite him and he will never overcome that. Serves him right for trying to be clever and denying everything. And thank goodness really for Masipa's double dutch judgement.

    As you say though, there could be more to come as the affidavit was not exhaustive.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Tortoise View Post
    Thanks JJ.

    I think the gist of it is that he (OP) is saying SCA erred, hence the unfairness. The arrogance never ceases and never ceases to amaze. I think the time is long since passed where he can say he was prejudiced by the trial being televised.

    As I said before, his multiple defences have come back to bite him and he will never overcome that. Serves him right for trying to be clever and denying everything. And thank goodness really for Masipa's double dutch judgement.

    As you say though, there could be more to come as the affidavit was not exhaustive.
    I agree 100%. He thought he was covering all bases with his multiple defences. Masipa should never have allowed that to happen. I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence. I have no idea what happened with that. No-one, and I think that might also include Roux, knew what he was going to say next. Imagine having a client like that. Then there was all that double tap nonsense.

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,524
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    I agree 100%. He thought he was covering all bases with his multiple defences. Masipa should never have allowed that to happen. I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence. I have no idea what happened with that. No-one, and I think that might also include Roux, knew what he was going to say next. Imagine having a client like that. Then there was all that double tap nonsense.

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.
    Me too.

    I'm pleased it was all taped because then it can be reviewed and no-one can play it down.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Miami
    Posts
    2,171
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    I agree 100%. He thought he was covering all bases with his multiple defences. Masipa should never have allowed that to happen. I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence. I have no idea what happened with that. No-one, and I think that might also include Roux, knew what he was going to say next. Imagine having a client like that. Then there was all that double tap nonsense.

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.
    Source?

    OP's testimony got himself convicted when he went off the script and changed his defense on the stand, but I have never heard of a notice of grounds of defense for criminal cases, only civil.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi View Post
    I agree 100%. He thought he was covering all bases with his multiple defences. Masipa should never have allowed that to happen. I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence. I have no idea what happened with that. No-one, and I think that might also include Roux, knew what he was going to say next. Imagine having a client like that. Then there was all that double tap nonsense.

    What really infuriated me was the dreadful bullying by Roux of the ear witnesses, especially Michelle Burger and the Stipps, of them colluding with their partners. However, in Roux's eyes there was nothing wrong with OP listening to everything all the witnesses said and OP then tailoring his stories to accommodate that which didn't fit with his version/s. If I was the prosecutor I'd have loved to put this to him in no uncertain terms. The more I hear and read about him, the more I need a huge green bucket.
    BIB, As the defendant, he has the right to listen to all the witnesses

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeJudi
    We do know some of the things he likes to look at, as he did on the evening of 13 February. He may well have been looking at briefs, but legal ones?
    If he was looking at porn, he would be like the vast majority of men in society, again, nothing deviant here.

    "While few people openly admit to watching porn, 66 percent of all men and 41 percent of American women view pornography at least once a month, and an estimated 50 percent of internet traffic is sex-related, according to the journal." - Boston.com

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Hiding in the Vatican Catacombs covertly
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by mhiforme View Post
    If he was looking at porn, he would be like the vast majority of men in society, again, nothing deviant here.

    "While few people openly admit to watching porn, 66 percent of all men and 41 percent of American women view pornography at least once a month, and an estimated 50 percent of internet traffic is sex-related, according to the journal." - Boston.com
    I would suggest that viewing porn in a public courtroom is deviant as is sneakily viewing porn whilst spending Valentines Day with your supposed love one is and not acceptable to most right minded people. This is not the same as 66 percent of men and 41 per cent of women admitting they view it at least once a month. The percentage watching it on Valentines Day whilst in the company of their partner would be a tiny fraction as would those who have sat in the dock of a courtroom and viewed porn. Your cognitive dissonance continues unabated.
    Last edited by Paul Connelly; 12-19-2015 at 05:30 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    367
    Quote Originally Posted by mhiforme View Post
    If he was looking at porn, he would be like the vast majority of men in society, again, nothing deviant here.

    "While few people openly admit to watching porn, 66 percent of all men and 41 percent of American women view pornography at least once a month, and an estimated 50 percent of internet traffic is sex-related, according to the journal." - Boston.com
    The vast majority of men don’t look at porn whilst they are sitting in the dock on trial for murder

    But then unlike Pistorius the vast majority of men don’t murder their girlfriends

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    3,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Greater Than View Post
    Source?

    OP's testimony got himself convicted when he went off the script and changed his defense on the stand, but I have never heard of a notice of grounds of defense for criminal cases, only civil.
    As I said in #8, “I've never heard of that before as the Defence is required to file a Notice of Grounds of Defence”. The name of the document may be incorrect – it may simply be called a Defence, Statement of Defence etc. I based my statement on criminal law in both the UK and Oz. As you know, SA law is primarily based on that of Great Britain and Roman-Dutch law, so it is possible it’s different in SA. Here in Oz, our laws are also based on that of Great Britain. The law in the US on this subject is different due to their Constitution. Even the legal eagles here are uncertain on a lot of the law in SA.

    In the UK (Crown Courts - Serious criminal cases)

    Chapter 15: Defence Disclosure

    15.1. In proceedings before the Crown court, where the prosecutor has provided initial disclosure, or purported to, the accused must serve a defence statement on the prosecutor and the court. The accused must also provide details of any witnesses he or she intends to call at the trial.

    Statutory requirements

    15.6. In the defence statement, the accused should:

    • set out the nature of the defence, including any particular defences on which the accused intends to rely
    • indicate the matters of fact on which the accused takes issue with the prosecution
    • outline, in the case of each such matter, why the accused takes issue with the prosecution
    • set out particulars of matters of fact on which he intends to rely for the purposes of his defence
    • indicate any point of law (including any point as to the admissibility of evidence or an abuse of process) which the accused wishes to take, and any authority on which he or she intends to rely for that purpose, and
    • comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State as to the details of matters that are to be included in defence statements.

    http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/d...al_chapter_15/

    In Australia:

    Criminal Procedure Amendment (Mandatory Pre-trial Defence Disclosure) Act 2013 No 10

    Pre-trial disclosure by Defence on an indictable offence

    143 Defence response

    (1) For the purposes of section 141 (1) (b), the notice of the defence response is to contain the following:
    (a) the name of any Australian legal practitioner proposed to appear on behalf of the accused person at the trial,
    (b) the nature of the accused person’s defence, including particular defences to be relied on,
    (c) the facts, matters or circumstances on which the prosecution intends to rely to prove guilt (as indicated in the prosecution’s notice under section 142) and with which the accused person intends to take issue,
    (d) points of law which the accused person intends to raise,
    (e) notice of any consent that the accused person proposes to give at the trial under section 190 of the Evidence Act 1995 in relation to each of the following:

    (i) a statement of a witness that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial,
    (ii) a summary of evidence that the prosecutor proposes to adduce at the trial,

    http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/...2013n10638.pdf

Page 1 of 78 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #70 *Appeal Verdict*
    By Coldpizza in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 259
    Last Post: 06-11-2016, 04:32 PM
  2. Replies: 1022
    Last Post: 12-19-2015, 08:49 AM
  3. Replies: 1157
    Last Post: 12-08-2015, 08:29 AM
  4. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #63 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1079
    Last Post: 08-19-2015, 08:07 PM
  5. Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #62 ~ the appeal~
    By KateB in forum Oscar Pistorius
    Replies: 1087
    Last Post: 08-05-2015, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread