Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #64 ~ the appeal~

pandax81 said:

Don't get me started on the quotes about virgins and *advertiser censored* and 17th century roman-dutch law professors, I think recruiting James Grant was not the best idea.
.

Click to expand...

RSBM

This might explain why they are going into this historical aspect ? ( It explains the background and some of the anomalies in SA African law, influence of Purist movement vs the modernisers promoting English law)

Prof Forsyth from Cambridge Univ, UK/Extraordinary Professor of Law at University of Stellenbosch CT.

http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news...-the-pistorius-case--christopher-forsyth/2934

GR_Turner said:

It might just depend on how busy they are. Four months is the maximum - but I wonder what the average amount of time is.

Click to expand...

Yes - would like to get to the bottom of this but doubt it's possible. I said in last thread that he may naturally just get put at the bottom of the existing list now hence a longer delay and surely they can't just convene a special one-off PB meeting for him. But it would help if they had been more transparent and detailed-otherwise this just becomes another political football.

mrjitty said:

How is this ignored?

It's the very question that the state is under appealing

i.e. that the judge was incorrect to find that OP did not foresee the possibility of killing whoever was behind door

The State's argument is that give all the facts as held by the judge, and the correct application of the test, clearly OP did have the requisite intention and thus the judge made an error of law.

Obviously Roux's argument will be that it is a question of fact.

Personally I believe it is a question of mixed fact and law.

Click to expand...

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 'Whether the principles of dolus eventualis were correctly applied to the accepted facts...'

The state lists many of the court's findings as "accepted facts". Conspicuously absent is the finding that OP clearly did not foresee the possibility of killing. The problem is, the state does not explain why they do not consider this an accepted fact - that is the issue, they don't even deal with it. To make the finding as the court did about OP's subjective intention requires no knowledge of dolus eventualis, you don't even need to have heard of dolus eventualis to make that finding. In this regard, it is legitimate to believe the onus is on the state to show why it is not a finding of fact and once you have that finding, the principles of dolus eventualis are then applied rather than the other way round. The state appear to be putting the cart before the horse. I'm not arguing the point one way or the other definitively, my point is if the state think they are putting the horse before the cart, they should have argued why.

This 'fingers in the ears' tactic is no good, they need to tackle things head on and ward it off now at this stage, it is such an obvious and strong objection that will come like a knockout punch, at least make some defensive gesture.

* That would have been a better question, one couched in terms of the legal principles and evidential approach and burden in determining subjective intention. It is one with precedent too from the Supreme Court that would go in favour of the state. But that isn't the question alas.

FromGermany said:

Twitter

Carl Pistorius ‏@carlpistorius 12 Std.Vor 12 Stunden
...!

Click to expand...

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?? Did I miss something??

Suthrnqt said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?? Did I miss something??

Click to expand...

Twitter without words from CP - also a statement.

His thought while writing "....!" maybe: I (Carl) did know that one would continue to treat my (poor) brother unjust!

What would you think he thought of?

cottonweaver said:

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/O...ntial-legal-action-by-Oscars-lawyers-20150819

"There was no word from Oscar Pistorius's lawyers on Wednesday night on whether they would pursue legal action following the decision by Justice Minister Michael Masutha...

His attorney Brian Webber could not immediately be reached for comment. However, Pistorius's family said they would consider their options.

"We accept the decision made by the minister of justice and are considering our options," family spokesperson Anneliese Burgess told News24 earlier."

A typical example of unconvincing double speak by PR spokesperson Burgess, purveyor of clear comms.

Maybe if they just preface every future utterance with "We accept the decision ....." and then do the opposite as per initial bail conditions

Click to expand...

I imagine it will happen fairly quickly. After all the Pistorius family seem to get preferential treatment with everything they do. I feel there is a large degree of posturing going on here. The board that met in June may well have followed all the procedures that were, at that time, normal practice and considered correct.

Suthrnqt said:

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does that mean?? Did I miss something??

Click to expand...

At a guess I think it meant he was speechless - LOL!

Interested Bystander said:

I imagine it will happen fairly quickly. After all the Pistorius family seem to get preferential treatment with everything they do. I feel there is a large degree of posturing going on here. The board that met in June may well have followed all the normal procedures.

Click to expand...

Well, that maybe right, but obviously at wrong time (too early).

FromGermany said:

Well, that maybe right, but obviously at wrong time (too early).

Click to expand...

I think the problem is that there is a new guy at the helm and he is making a name for himself. I don't really think that the prison would have knowingly made this mistake. If the board meeting was June and, possibly, if they meet four monthly, the next one would have been after his 10 month sentence expires, ie next meeting due in October. I expect this routine has been in place for a very long time.

Interested Bystander said:

I imagine it will happen fairly quickly. After all the Pistorius family seem to get preferential treatment with everything they do. I feel there is a large degree of posturing going on here. The board that met in June may well have followed all the procedures that were, at that time, normal practice and considered correct.

Click to expand...

Sorry Bystander, are you saying that you guess he will be released fairly quickly ie. pre Appeal?

David Dadic ‏@DavidDadic 5 hours ago tweet

Spose if Oscar brings an urgent application to get out today, we may find out sooner than the appeal whether he's taken new legal counsel

Click to expand...

Intriguing......

Today's CNN- sounds like he's fairly comfortable in there!! So he can weather circa 4 more months...........

"Like all inmates in South Africa's prison system, Pistorius was able to air his complaints to members of an independent inspection arm of correctional services, giving a fascinating insight into his life behind bars.
Two of those officers, Violet Ngobeni and Boitumelo Morake, met with Pistorius multiple times.

"When he arrived he was angry," said Ngobeni outside Kgosi Mampuru II prison. "The first time I went to see him he was like 'I don't want to talk to anyone.'

hey say he initially struggled to adapt to prison life, where he had to spend 23 hours a day in his cell. But they say he's since changed dramatically.

"Now he can sit down and discuss and laugh at the same time," Ngobeni said.

During their time with Pistorius, he shared his complaints.

"He complained that he wanted a bath. They [correctional services) built a bath in his cell. He also had a complaint about his bed. And they replaced his bed for him," says Murasiet Mentoor, the regional manager of the Judicial Inspectorate, who reviews hundreds of written prisoner complaints.

Mentoor says Pistorius complained about his gym equipment, so they changed that, too.

Mentoor said prison officials offered to let Pistorius cook the raw produce, but he preferred to only buy processed food from the prison store.
Ngobeni and Morake say they last visited Pistorius a few days ago, when he thought he was about to be released into corrective supervision at his uncle's house in an affluent Pretoria suburb.

Ngobeni said: "He just talked about "I miss my family, I need to spend more time with my family, just to go out and see my friends."
BIB - maybe just a slip of the tongue?

[video=cnn;world/2015/08/19/pistorius-prison-exclusive-mckenzie-dnt.cnn]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/19/africa/south-africa-pistorius-in-prison/index.html[/video]

ETA Haven't actually watched this video - pasted in error.

cottonweaver said:

Sorry Bystander, are you saying that you guess he will be released fairly quickly ie. pre Appeal?

Click to expand...

Yep. I hope not but I think his family seems to manage to get their way whatever and I think Roux will bring pressure to bear BUT I could be completely wrong and I hope I am. Just a feeling I have.

As we already know, four months is the maximum gap between Parole Board Meetings which should make the next one, at the latest, October 2015. Still before the Appeal. If he is released at that time it will be very difficult to get him back inside should the appeal go against him. If this appeal does go against him I think he will be allowed to appeal the new sentence (Constitutional Court??) whilst still under house arrest but I guess then he would technically be back on bail. Maybe the bail conditions would be different from the house arrest conditions?? IMO this could go on for years.

@ Interested Bystander

"IMO this could go on for years."

Click to expand...

I agree.
That'll be further hell for RS's family, in terms of trying to move on/grieve.

Interested Bystander said:

I think the problem is that there is a new guy at the helm and he is making a name for himself. I don't really think that the prison would have knowingly made this mistake. If the board meeting was June and, possibly, if they meet four monthly, the next one would have been after his 10 month sentence expires, ie next meeting due in October. I expect this routine has been in place for a very long time.

Click to expand...

I thought the parole board at the prison met much more often than that. It's interesting that OP didn't apply for house arrest but was referred to the parole board I assume by someone who thought he should be released. This totally backfired if so.

JudgeJudi said:

"Culpable homicide" has been defined (in South African law) simply as "the unlawful negligent killing of a human being".

Clearly OP can be correctly described as a killer and this will remain until the SCA reaches their decision in the appeal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culpable_homicide

Culpable homicide, like murderI is a form of unlawful killing. The crucial difference, however, is that if a person kills intentionally it is murder, whereas if he or she kills negligently it is culpable homicide.

http://www.legalcity.net/Index.cfm?fuseaction=RIGHTS.article&ArticleID=4191473

Should the SCA find him guilty of either DD or DE he can then correctly be described as a murderer.

On a different note:

OP’s family has repeatedly denied he gets preferential treatment in prison. If that’s the case I’d really like to know which other inmates have had the benefit of the following entitlements:

“He complained that he wanted a bath. Correctional Services built a bath in his cell”.

He complained about his bed so Correctional Services “replaced his bed”.

He complained about his gym equipment “so they changed that too”.

“He has his own cell and separate toilet … away from the general prison population”.

The above comments were from Murasiet Mentoor, the regional manager of the Judicial Inspectorate who reviews written prisoners’ complaints.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/pistorius-changes-from-angry-to-able-laugh-in-prison-q06632

And the family:

Aimee dismissed reports that prison regulations were flouted and that her brother was receiving preferential treatment.

The Sunday Times also reported that prison officials drove both Aimee and Carl's cars into the prison grounds without searching them.

Aimee "didn't comment on claims that her car was driven into the facility by a prison official and not searched".

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/bi...ceive-special-treatment-says-his-sister-aimee

Click to expand...

In fairness to Aimee, based on her and both of her brothers' comments and general behavior, she probably thinks every prisoner would get a requested bath, different bed, better gym equipment and private toilet.

:sarcasm:

GR_Turner said:

I thought the parole board at the prison met much more often than that. It's interesting that OP didn't apply for house arrest but was referred to the parole board I assume by someone who thought he should be released. This totally backfired if so.

Click to expand...

I think you are right that meetings may be more frequent. Four months is the maximum. I really don't expect to see OP inside for much longer. I think he did meet the requirements for parole and I do think this is political interference from a guy who is new on the block and want's to make sure he is noticed. Smacks a little to me of him being a jobsworth. Regardless of my opinion of OP's guilt, I think this type of behaviour on the part of "the state" is a great pity.

kittychi said:

In fairness to Aimee, based on her and both of her brothers' comments and general behavior, she probably thinks every prisoner would get a requested bath, different bed, better gym equipment and private toilet.


:sarcasm:

Click to expand...

:giggle:

Interested Bystander said:

I think you are right that meetings may be more frequent. Four months is the maximum. I really don't expect to see OP inside for much longer. I think he did meet the requirements for parole and I do think this is political interference from a guy who is new on the block and want's to make sure he is noticed. Smacks a little to me of him being a jobsworth. Regardless of my opinion of OP's guilt, I think this type of behaviour on the part of "the state" is a great pity.

Click to expand...

I agree. And it sets a bad precedent if pressure groups feel that they can influence decisions in this way.

GR_Turner said:

I agree. And it sets a bad precedent if pressure groups feel that they can influence decisions in this way.

Click to expand...

I really don't think the release is due to that women's group - following the train of all the posts on this since yesterday afternoon.

The women's group may claim this as a victory. Indeed they have already.
Pistorians will claim this a a "further" outrageous injustice. Ditto - many of them are saying just that already.
If this is "dodgy" the Minister used them, used their petition as a cover to say why he had just looked into it . In which case the political interference from much higher levels - they don't really care about some fringe women's group. IMO

Or if plain and simple incompetence in June, the womens' group make a handy fig-leaf, looks good, looks responsive.
Either way whole thing backfires anyway probably. International press think this is more buffoonery/undue influence from State.