Masipa made an error while reading her judgment. On day one she repeatedly said words to the effect that OP hadn’t admitted that he had the intention to shoot and kill the deceased. The following day she amended this by adding, “or any other person for that matter”. Unfortunately for Masipa, a judge
must correct an error immediately it is made, or certainly while the court is in session. She cannot come back the next day and correct it.
This article was published following the verdict.
The vast majority of the legal fraternity agree that the State failed to make a compelling case, but they are nonetheless adamant that the prosecution satisfied the legal requirements for a conviction of second-degree murder, or murder dolus eventualis.
Ulrich Roux said, “Our law is very clear on the matter. ... I have yet to meet a lawyer or legal expert who doesn’t see it that way. From the evidence, it is clear that Pistorius knew there was a real possibility that he would kill whoever was behind that door. It’s a form of indirect intention, and this is murder dolus eventualis.”
Masipa, however, appears to have focused her interpretation of the law on the fact that OP didn’t knowingly kill Reeva, while the law clearly refers to the death of a person, any person, and not necessarily the person identified in a charge sheet. It is on this key point that she is likely to come in for some ferocious criticism over the next few days.
“Given that Masipa’s high court judgment legally binds the regional and magistrate’s courts in Gauteng, a province notorious for its high murder rates, to follow the precedent she has set, is the state not actually obliged to appeal?”
http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/masipa-got-it-wrong-in-law-1.1750505#.VksgTWyhc4k
