Pistorius guilty of murder, SCA rules - As it happened

2015-12-03 07:04

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court of Appeal. June Steenkamp sobbed outside the court moments after hearing the ruling.


Jump to

Last Updated at 03:23
03 Dec 12:01

Oscar Pistorius's family said it noted the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to replace his culpable homicide conviction with murder.

"The legal team will study the finding and we will be guided by them in terms of options going forward," the family said in a statement."We will not be commenting any further at this stage."

03 Dec 11:41
If you're keen on getting through all the legalese, you can read the full judgment here. 

03 Dec 11:40

The National Prosecuting Authority welcomed the Supreme Court of Appeal's decision to replace Oscar Pistorius’s culpable homicide conviction with murder.

"It affirms our contention that the trial court judge misdirected herself in her interpretation in the application of the law," spokesperson Luvuyo Mfaku told News24.

03 Dec 11:31

Oscar Pistorius will now have to provide compelling reasons why he should not be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in jail for murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a legal expert said on Thursday.

"He is still serving his sentence for culpable homicide, and the sentencing will be heard afresh by the high court," Marius du Toit, a defence lawyer and former prosecutor told News24. 

"He is now facing a 15-year jail term, unless he provides substantial and compelling reasons to the high court to deviate from that." 

He said it was possible that Pistorius would be able to provide a compelling reason. 

"He was sentenced to five years [for the culpable homicide]. I think he is capable of maybe bringing it [the murder sentence] down to a 10 year sentence, suspended for five years." 

Pistorius is currently under correctional supervision at his uncle's home in Pretoria.

03 Dec 11:22
Barry Steenkamp, Reeva's father, tells News24 that his family can hopefully get on with their lives now.

03 Dec 11:11

03 Dec 11:00

03 Dec 10:59

03 Dec 10:49

03 Dec 10:48
June did not say anything, she was sobbing as she hugged some members of the ANCWL outside court, reports Jeanette Chabalala.

03 Dec 10:45
As judgment was read out, June was being comforted by a friend and appeared to have little expression on her face.

03 Dec 10:44
So after the SCA's ruling in favour of the State, the matter will now go back to the High Court for the judge to rule on Pistorius's sentence.

03 Dec 10:38
BREAKING: Pistorius guilty of murder

03 Dec 10:37
Leach: In the interest of justice, culpable homicide must be set aside and replaced with correct conviction.

03 Dec 10:37
Leach: On count 1, the accused ought to have been convicted of murder dolus eventualis.

03 Dec 10:36
EL dismisses defense argument OP acted in putative self defense - says there was no rational basis to believe his life was in danger.

03 Dec 10:33
Leach: The identity of the person behind the door is irrelevant.

03 Dec 10:32
EL: "In these circumstances, I have NO DOUBT that in firing those shots the accused must have foresee that he was gambling with a life."

03 Dec 10:32
EL: I have no doubt that in firing the fatal shots the accused must have foreseen that whoever was behind door might die.

03 Dec 10:30
EL dealing with the defence's submission during sentence argument - his vulnerability. He's a person well-trained in the use of firearms. He fired four shots through the door - and never offered an acceptable explanation for his actions.

03 Dec 10:28
EL: In the interest of justice an accused should be sentenced on the crime they were convicted - not a lesser crime.

03 Dec 10:28
EL: In the interests of justice require that person should be convicted of crime they actually convicted, especially in cases of violent crime.

03 Dec 10:27
EL now considering whether OP should be given a retrial. "It would seem to me to be wholly impractical."

03 Dec 10:26
EL now dealing with how the SCA can proceed...

03 Dec 10:26
The TV in the background...

03 Dec 10:25
Leach: The application of dolus eventualis was incorrectly applied and the court did not properly consider all the evidence.

03 Dec 10:24
EL: The failure to take it (Mangena evidence) must be regarded as an error in law.

03 Dec 10:23
EL says ballistic evidence showed that OP must have known that consequences of shooting into cubicle would be death.

03 Dec 10:23
EL: There was effectively nowhere for the deceased to hide. Ammunition would mushroom, causing devastating injuries. (In other words, OP should have foreseen that his actions would result in death of whoever was behind the door)

03 Dec 10:21

03 Dec 10:20
A few people in court said "mmm" quietly when Leach said that the first point was in favour of the State (that the trial court made an error in law in applying the principles of dolus eventualis).

03 Dec 10:20

03 Dec 10:19
EL also takes aim at Masipa for failing to take into account certain circumstantial evidence, such as Reeva's discarded jeans.

03 Dec 10:17
EL says the circumstantial evidence must not be ignored. It must all be considered.

03 Dec 10:16
Masipa misdirected herself, EL says. This leans towards the State's case...

03 Dec 10:15
EL moves onto whether the court properly considered the circumstantial evidence.

03 Dec 10:14
EL compares OP case to someone who lets a bomb explode in a crowded place - they're unlikely to know the ID of their victims.

03 Dec 10:12
EL: The issue not whether he had direct intention to kill person behind door - but whether he foresaw possibility of death.

03 Dec 10:11
EL speaks of a further "fundamental error" in Masipa's ruling.

03 Dec 10:11

03 Dec 10:09
EL dismisses Masipa's reasoning around dolus eventualis as "confusing".

03 Dec 10:06
EL is explaining the whole concept of dolus eventualis which is at the heart of the appeal: did OP foresee death.

03 Dec 10:05
EL explaining that dolus eventualis involves perpetrator foreseeing possibility of death occurring - continuing anyway.

03 Dec 10:03
Unlawful and intentional killing of another person - judge defines murder.

03 Dec 10:02
EL: This court cannot interfere with the factual finding that there was no fight which led to the shooting.

03 Dec 10:02
EL explains what the state's OP appeal involves: the question of whether Judge Masipa correctly applied the law.

03 Dec 10:01
EL: The state may well feel justifiably aggrieved by the court acquitting someone when a conviction should have followed.

03 Dec 09:58
EL says it's still not clear what OP's version of events is as he changed it several times.

03 Dec 09:56
Leach: With ample justification, the court found OP to be very poor witness. His version of events changed.

03 Dec 09:56
EL sets out how OP broke down the door ad found Steenkamp before calling for help.

Jump to


Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.