Discussion Thread #61 ~ the appeal~

kittychi said:

Reeva Steenkamp's mother says prosecutors' bid to get a harsher sentence for Oscar Pistorius 'doesn't matter' as she launches domestic violence foundation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tims-mom-not-interested-Pistorius-appeal.html

Mrs. Steenkamp is a classy and gracious woman.

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

Her daughter Reeva fought against domestic violence and died a violent death at the hands of her boyfriend.

I can't for the life of me understand why she would say "it doesn't matter" ?!?

If she doesn't believes OP's story...

- Doesn't matter that her daughter's murderer perjured himself about the circumstances of her death ?

- Doesn't mater that her daughter's killer will get away with murder with only a slap on the wrist ?

- Doesn't matter that a very poor message is sent to all domestic abusers and domestic victims ?

… what's the point of launching a domestic violence foundation when you are indifferent towards pursuing Justice for the victims of domestic violence and punishment of the perpetrators of domestic violence ?

If she believes OP's story...

- Doesn't matter that a man is being persecuted for a crime he did not commit ?

Either way, IT MATTERS !!

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

Her daughter Reeva fought against domestic violence and died a violent death at the hands of her boyfriend.

I can't for the life of me understand why she would say "it doesn't matter" ?!?

If she doesn't believes OP's story...

- Doesn't matter that her daughter's murderer perjured himself about the circumstances of her death ?

- Doesn't mater that her daughter's killer will get away with murder with only a slap on the wrist ?

- Doesn't matter that a very poor message is sent to all domestic abusers and domestic victims ?

… what's the point of launching a domestic violence foundation when you are indifferent towards pursuing Justice for the victims of domestic violence and punishment of the perpetrators of domestic violence ?

If she believes OP's story...

- Doesn't matter that a man is being persecuted for a crime he did not commit ?

Either way, IT MATTERS !!

Click to expand...

soozieqtips said:

Is Reeva's mother saying that pursuing justice for her daughter's death doesn't matter? I do remember her saying she was happy with the 5-year sentence, and that she wasn't out for revenge. However, this isn't about revenge, but about making sure the law was followed in reaching the correct decision. Masipa's application of the law (especially with regards to possession) needs to be clarified for future reference. Mrs Steenkamp admitted she thought OP was a liar on the stand, so her saying it doesn't matter about his sentence makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Sherbert said:

The question of whether or not Seekoei can be overturned or distinguished from the present case, bearing in mind that it appears to have stood as a precedent since 1984, is unchartered territory.

There are sound and logical reasons why Seekoei should be reversed, but, as far as I can remember, Masipa didn't elaborate on why she didn't consider Seekoei to be a problem for the State.

Roux will doubtless seek to persuade her that OP is entitled to rely on Seekoei, on the grounds that it would be unfair to him to move the goalposts after his trial.

Also, as it is rare for the State to appeal against conviction, (possibly due to Seekoie and the issue of funding/caseload), I imagine that the vast majority of legal practitioners have not encountered a scenario where the Defence is not only opposing the appeal itself, but has also lodged an application challenging the trial judge's decision to grant the Prosecution leave to appeal.

I don't know what the rationale behind Seekoei was - here is the Appeal judgement - it's in Afrikaans

http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZASCA/1984/89.html&query=%20seekoei

Maybe one of our Afrikaans speaking websleuthers can help us out?

Click to expand...

Colin de France said:

.....if she did say it ....could it have been nothing matters because nothing can bring her daughter back ?

Click to expand...

ApplesInMyBra said:

I speak Afrikaans and would be happy to read through it, but what are the exact questions you want answered?

Click to expand...

soozieqtips said:

If she meant "nothing matters" because it won't bring Reeva back, fair enough. I can understand that. But the correct sentence does matter - for all future victims of a trigger-happy idiot.

Click to expand...

L2L said:

OP scores in prison.... showing photos and video,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...playing-football-prison-alleged-gangster.html

Click to expand...

4MrsB said:

To me, this video disproves the articles circulating from the family (I think it was Carl) & the media that state OP has lost so much weight that his prosthesis no longer fit correctly and are creating problems such as sores, pain, etc., due to an ill fit.

He seems to move around quite easily in this video playing soccer/shoot out with this inmate. Runs quickly and turns sharply to retieve balls. Moves heavy cemented pole with ease.

I'm guessing they fit just fine.

Click to expand...

Judgejudi said:

Now that we’ve all had ample opportunity to digest, discuss and dispute or otherwise Judge Masipa’s judgment and sentence, it’s interesting but very frustrating to go back to the following link again.

Oscar must not be believed – Judge Greenland and Ulrich Roux

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBKGrBLfhBs

As Judge Greenland hasn’t been posting very infrequently for quite some time, I missed the following discussion altogether. It’s only short.

Accepting responsibility – Judge Greenland and Prof. James Grant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lru3ESBYH4g&feature=youtu.be&a

A reminder that tomorrow, Friday the 13th, is the date set for the hearing of the defence’s application for leave to appeal the granting of the State’s leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Click to expand...

AJ_DS said:

At the time of the events…

- OP was a free man, surrounded by family and friends, pursuing his career, living in a secured house located on a secured estate, etc…

- Yet it was argued by Roux and Defence witnesses that OP's past experiences as a victim of criminality combined with his disability made him psychologically prone to be extremely fearful, paranoid, etc…

Now serving his sentence...

- OP has lost his freedom, he is an incarcerated man in an unfamiliar and dangerous place, he is surrounded by criminals, he fears for his life, he fears being poisoned, etc…

- OP has lost weight, his prosthetics do not fit him properly, his stumps are injured, reduced mobility, etc…

… One would expect OP to cower in fear and panic, to be highly depressed, even to be suicidal

- Yet he is filmed playing soccer with an inmate quite normally !!!

Click to expand...

Sherbert said:

Thanks Apples. I was wondering why the Appeal Court decided that the State should not be permitted to appeal. Was it on the basis of fairness to the Respondent? I gather that he was convicted of robbery, but not of burglary, which meant that the State couldn't appeal against conviction as robbery was considered to be a competent verdict.

Had the first instance decision been in the Magistrates' court, there is no such barrier to an appeal. Also, it doesn't make sense to me that a person who is entirely acquitted is at risk of an appeal, but not a person who is convicted of a lesser charge.

Click to expand...

ApplesInMyBra said:

High Sherbert,
It took me a while to read and re-read this document. The writer didn't use spell check at all :facepalm: - many many typos!

This is not the actual Seekoei Appeal judgement, but this document deals with the Appeal to question the description of robbery as "Robbery consists in the theft of property by intentionally using violence to induce submission to the taking of it from the person of another or in his presence."
The judge in the Seekoei case found that he could not be found guilty of robbery because the woman he attacked was bound to a pole 2kms from her store that he stole from (using this description of robbery).

Under the provisions of Art. 333 it authorizes the Minister of Justice, when he "doubts about the correctness of a ruling on a question of law that a higher court in a criminal case gave" to argue the matter before the appellate court so that the question of law can be clarified for the future guidance of all courts.

So this appeal was brought before this appeals court by the Seekoei Prosecutor in order to question the accuracy of this definition of robbery, not the judgement of Seekoei.

This appeals court judge had to answer the two following questions:
1. It is a requirement in our law that, for the crime of robbery, the theft must take place in the presence of the victim?
2. Do the facts set out above state the crime of housebreaking with the intent of stealing and theft?

The article then goes into great detail and references to other cases to answer these questions, and the conclusion was that both answers to the questions above are NO.

Click to expand...