Oscar Pistorius - Discussion Thread #69 *Appeal Verdict*

[JudgeJudi]

If anyone is interested in watching the ConCourt in action, you can watch the Zuma Nkandla case now. There are 5 legal teams and each has 45 minutes to address the Court. It started a couple of hours ago unfortunately but I just found it. They’re having a 15 minute adjournment at the moment . I think live streaming worldwide is a world first for SA. It’s an extremely important trial.

President Zuma had "a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, visitors centre and an amphitheatre, amongst other things, built at the State expense" and claimed it was all in the interests of his security.

The court is packed to capacity. Court is back in session.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/zuma-and-eff-concourt-how-did-we-here

 

[Tortoise]

If anyone is interested in watching the ConCourt in action, you can watch the Zuma Nkandla case now. There are 5 legal teams and each has 45 minutes to address the Court. It started a couple of hours ago unfortunately but I just found it. They’re having a 15 minute adjournment at the moment . I think live streaming worldwide is a world first for SA. It’s an extremely important trial.

President Zuma had "a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, visitors centre and an amphitheatre, amongst other things, built at the State expense" and claimed it was all in the interests of his security.

The court is packed to capacity.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/zuma-and-eff-concourt-how-did-we-here

Interesting, thank you for the link JJ.

I take it the judges won't be looking at Pistorius' papers for a while yet.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Interesting, thank you for the link JJ.

I take it the judges won't be looking at Pistorius' papers for a while yet.

What's very interesting here is that President Zuma appointed Chief Justice Mogoeng. That's a bit worrying. Can you hear the crowd outside the Court? The whole country will be watching this trial.

I'll be surprised if OP gets to the ConCourt. Full stop.

 

[Interested Bystander]

What's very interesting here is that President Zuma appointed Chief Justice Mogoeng. That's a bit worrying. Can you hear the crowd outside the Court? The whole country will be watching this trial.

I'll be surprised if OP gets to the ConCourt. Full stop.

His meteoric rise to the top is covered in Wiki. Worth a read. Some of his history is a bit problematic IMO.

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

 

[Marfa Lights]

His meteoric rise to the top is covered in Wiki. Worth a read. Some of his history is a bit problematic IMO.

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

I'll say! I hope Pistorius cannot petition the Chief Justice directly. Especially after his brag that his family "owned Zuma."

 

[Trotterly]

If anyone is interested in watching the ConCourt in action, you can watch the Zuma Nkandla case now. There are 5 legal teams and each has 45 minutes to address the Court. It started a couple of hours ago unfortunately but I just found it. They’re having a 15 minute adjournment at the moment . I think live streaming worldwide is a world first for SA. It’s an extremely important trial.

President Zuma had "a cattle kraal, chicken run, swimming pool, visitors centre and an amphitheatre, amongst other things, built at the State expense" and claimed it was all in the interests of his security.

The court is packed to capacity. Court is back in session.

http://www.enca.com/south-africa/zuma-and-eff-concourt-how-did-we-here

This appears to be the President attempting to side step his duck house.

That's certainly a Constitutional issue of public importance.

 

[sinth]

I will also be surprised if the appeal gets heard. I think the whole thing is being deliberately dragged out to give himself more time in the luxury mansion!

I think the family are appealing because literally at all costs they do not want a "Pistorius" to be labeled a murderer. They have deep pockets and in the business circles in which they mix I can imagine that it would remove a lot of your prestige having a family member as a convicted murderer. The family statement which Arnold made after Masipa acquitted him of murder supports this:

"On behalf of the family, we would really like to show how deeply grateful we are to Judge Masipa who has found Oscar not guilty of murder.....It's a big burden off us, off our shoulders".


​

In addition, I remember reading an article (which I am currently unable to find) where someone stated that he had been in contact with Oscar (via SMS) after the initial conviction and apparently oscar wrote that he doesn't care about the length of the sentence for culpable homicide, the important thing is that he is not a murderer.

 

[Belgarion]

I'll say! I hope Pistorius cannot petition the Chief Justice directly. Especially after his brag that his family "owned Zuma."

I would suggest such a course of action to be highly unlikely. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Rules of the Concourt to permit such a thing. It was mentioned once as a possibility in the media and hasn’t been mentioned since.

To enable the Chief Justice to be petitioned then for him to find against the possible collective view of 11 Justices would be perverse and undemocratic in the extreme and would certainly open up the Chief Justice to suggestions of corruption.

Can’t see it happening

 

[mhiforme]

This appears to be the President attempting to side step his duck house.

That's certainly a Constitutional issue of public importance.

I haven't followed this trial, but what is the "constitutional issue of public importance" in this case?

 

[Trotterly]

I haven't followed this trial, but what is the "constitutional issue of public importance" in this case?

As I understand it the President Of South Africa had some home improvements carried out at public expense. The People were not convinced when, for example, his new swimming pool was passed off as a "Fire pool" which was to store chlorinated water for "fire fighting" purposes. His failure to fess-up at the appropriate time has resulted in the current Concourt action.

 

[JudgeJudi]

I haven't followed this trial, but what is the "constitutional issue of public importance" in this case?

As I understand it the President Of South Africa had some home improvements carried out at public expense. The People were not convinced when, for example, his new swimming pool was passed off as a "Fire pool" which was to store chlorinated water for "fire fighting" purposes. His failure to fess-up at the appropriate time has resulted in the current Concourt action.

The upgrades to Nkandla, Zuma’s private home, cost R246-million and were so-called security upgrades done at the State’s expense. The ConCourt case is more than just getting Zuma to repay money, it’s about protecting the Constitution and the Public Protector (PP) who reported that much of this money was for non-security items. The police minister reported that they were all vital security measures and that Zuma was not liable to pay. The law clearly states that even essential security measures must be paid for by the owner of the property being upgraded, even if he has not asked for or agreed to the upgrade.

Lawyers for Zuma, the National Assembly Speaker and the Police Minister all conceded in court that the PP’s findings could only be challenged by a judicial review.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Democratic Alliance (DA) want the court to clarify the nature and extent of the PP’s powers to take remedial action. The DA say certainty about the PP’s powers is vital to a successful constitutional democracy and both want the court to compel Zuma to implement the PP’s recommendations and repay a reasonable part of the money spent on so-called security upgrades.

The principle at stake is the Public Protector may make binding orders and Zuma acted in breach of those orders. Zuma's lawyer conceded that the PP’s findings were in fact binding. Counsel for the EFF wants the ConCourt to issue an order declaring that Zuma has violated the Constitution. If the court makes such an order, it could be used as grounds for impeachment.

 

[Tortoise]

There doesn't appear to be any support for Steyn's opinion, not here or from SA legal experts.

 

[aftermath]

There doesn't appear to be any support for Steyn's opinion, not here or from SA legal experts.

I agree with him re the link between dolus and the acceptance of the possibility of unlawful action/consequences. But since I have been asked if I am Dr steyn on here, I guess that's unsurprising

 

[Tortoise]

I agree with him re the link between dolus and the acceptance of the possibility of unlawful action/consequences. But since I have been asked if I am Dr steyn on here, I guess that's unsurprising

Okay, since you haven't explained why you agree, can I ask if you think that the test of the killer's actions in regards to the requirements of self-defence and putative self-defence establishes knowledge of unlawfulness?

 

[Trotterly]

There doesn't appear to be any support for Steyn's opinion, not here or from SA legal experts.

I haven't read it in detail but it seems obvious that at some point knowledge of unlawfulness/lawfulness must be tested in relation to DE whether it forms part of its formal "definition" or not.

 

[Tortoise]

I haven't read it in detail but it seems obvious that at some point knowledge of unlawfulness/lawfulness must be tested in relation to DE whether it forms part of its formal "definition" or not.

It is tested, when the defence of PPD is examined. The act of killing when not acting in self-defence (objectively viewed) is unlawful. Consideration is then given to the defence of PPD and whether the accused genuinely believed he was acting lawfully.

 

[aftermath]

Okay, since you haven't explained why you agree, can I ask if you think that the test of the killer's actions in regards to the requirements of self-defence and putative self-defence establishes knowledge of unlawfulness?

I wasn't aware I had to explain. But no- i don't think that knowledge of unlawfulnes at the time of committing the action had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Tortoise]

I wasn't aware I had to explain. But no- i don't think that knowledge of unlawfulnes at the time of committing the action had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

Not saying you have to explain, but it seems reasonable to ask since you said you supported the argument.

I didn't mean Pistorius when I said the killer, I meant in general terms, because the appeal accuses the SCA of making an error of law in its approach to settling DE. So, I asked if you think the test regarding the requirements of putative self-defence establishes knowledge of lawfulness?

 

[Sherbert]

There doesn't appear to be any support for Steyn's opinion, not here or from SA legal experts.

I haven't read his articles properly yet, but, what I do agree with is that Courts must be careful not to mix up the test for negligence with the test for murderous intent. The SCA's use of the adjective 'rational' did set alarm bells ringing a little, as an irrational killer who genuinely believes that he's acting in self defence wouldn't be a murderer.

Obviously, however, irrational behaviour can lead us to infer that an accused isn't being truthful, which, reading between the lines, is what the SCA were saying.

 

[Marfa Lights]

I wasn't aware I had to explain. But no- i don't think that knowledge of unlawfulnes at the time of committing the action had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

I think "knowledge" of unlawfulness in this legal sense refers to whether or not the accused fired four shots into the toilet door knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that:
1. No attack had commenced nor was there an imminent threat of bodily harm;
2. It was not necessary in this instance to use lethal force to prevent any attack;
3. He had not even identified who was behind the door much less determined whether or not they presented a threat.