Search results

Some great posts as usual sleuthers. Sentencing thoughts: - Remorse. You can't be remorseful for a crime while denying the crime. “Sorry I got the wrong person” does not qualify. And “why did Reeva do/not do X Y Z” is victim-blaming. - Circumstances of the crime. I find it aggravating, not...

Roux's attempted explanation of Masipa's framing of D.E is exactly what James Grant wrote before the verdict http://criminallawza.net/2014/03/03/the-pistorius-defence/ Edit: Grant is hopelessly wrong on this though too. Once one believes one is under attack and is entitled to act in self...

The only thing I learned from the hearing is that the SCA judges are just as stupid as Masipa, particularly the ones who talked the most. Maybe 2 wrongs will make a right!

So we have both HoA filed now. The defence runs with a factual finding of putative self defence and the interpretation that where Masipa said 'did not intend to kill' this means 'did not intend to unlawfully kill'. This is backed up by citation to Snyman, the author of the criminal law...

They hide it under the carpet in exactly the manner you describe - by posturing that it is not an issue so simply not dealing with it. It's no good pretending the question reserved is 'whether the court was correct to find that OP did not foresee the possibility of killing' - it isn't*. The Q is...

My my, things have been warming up in town haven't they? Roux won't be distracted by the unicyclists and clowns though, he knows he has his deadline to meet. And on that topic, it disappoints me to say I am not impressed much at all with the state's appeal HoA, a bit of a curate's egg for me...

So Roux identified a potential trap, which he has now dealt with. - He has covered off any objection by the SCA that he did not follow procedure and is therefore unable to argue for dismissal of the Qs of Law. - Masipa and the State have both conceded on the record OP's right to argue...

We are in unchartered territory here, this is not the normal 'appeals' process, so even the teams involved are testing the waters with procedure. Roux had three main arguments why the Qs of law should be dismissed: - The legal precedent (Seekoei) is that the prosecutor cannot reserve Qs of law...

I hear the circus is back in town soon... "3. Whether the court was correct in its construction and reliance on an alternative version of the accused and that this alternative version was reasonably possibly true" No wonder OP is running scared... this is a golden hand dealt by Masipa, I...

Please don't speak for me mrjitty. You have a habit of selective reading and misrepresenting my views, and we are back there again. I was asked by someone: in the case of reservation of Qs of law by Masipa, is it a possibility for Masipa to grant bail without a defence appeal. I answered yes...

Maybe read the section again properly.

There was that time m'lady confirmed OP had something in his eye, maybe one of his lashes came loose from all the fluttering...

Maybe the inside of the toilet has seen some "wood movement" after all...

Don't worry, I haven't had a bout of Pistorian flu. I meant ‘if I put myself in the frame of mind of Masipa’. This is the judge who acquitted him of murder and gave him 10 months incarceration for bordering-on-murder, after all. I just think she would be inclined to grant bail if so...

Yes Mr Fossil, it is allowed for by s 321 of the Criminal Procedure Act: 321 When execution of sentence may be suspended (1) The execution of the sentence of a superior court shall not be suspended by reason of any appeal against a conviction or by reason of any question of law having been...

The state touched as much as they could/should at this stage: "3. AND WHEREAS the State is entitled to request that questions for consideration of the Superior Court of Appeal/Appellate Division should be reserved". I don't think it was coincidence either that they filed Count 1 (competent...

Probably some misunderstanding of the terminology. It is Masipa who is being requested by the prosecution to put questions (of law) to the SCA. This is the form by which the state 'appeals the conviction'. However, Masipa must write a report for the SCA "giving her opinion upon the case or...

The pit bull is back in the playpen, and he has one thing on his mind!

The SCA can make any order, including a retrial, as "justice may require", see s 322 (1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Qs of law all relate to the judgment. If the errors didn't affect the evidence heard, then I personally can't see compelling merit in a retrial. The state's papers do...

For the state's appeal of the conviction, the appeal court must be the Supreme Court of Appeal. It is mandated by s315 (1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.