HERE ARE THE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: While Masipa ruled that prosecutors had failed to prove explicit pre-meditation to kill Steenkamp - a decision that had been anticipated by many legal experts - she also cleared #OscarPistorius of the lesser charge of murder in the heat of the moment. A 2008 paper by KwaZulu Natal law professor Shannon Hoctor explained dolus eventualis as when a person foresaw the possibility that the act in question.... would have fatal consequences, and was reckless whether death resulted or not. Masipa said the state had not proven that Pistorius had foreseen such a possibility. She did, however, find on Thursday that: A reasonable person would have foreseen if he fired shots at the door, the person inside the toilet might be struck and might die as a result. Chris Greenland, a retired South African high court judge, said this was a serious inconsistency. He told MailOnline: I am utterly bemused that this mistake was made. I cant wrap my head around it. I have never seen a judge make such a big mistake especially when she had so much time to arrive at a judgement. Its inexplicable. She has misinterpreted herself with regard to the law because she herself said previously that Oscar Pistoriuss defence was that he was not guilty of murder because he killed her by mistake thinking that he was shooting at an intruder. Now, during her verdict, she made a statement that was inconsistent because she found that he had not foreseen that he would kill the human being on the other side of the door. That was erroneous - she had already set out the law. It was a fundamental mistake. He believes the state would have a strong case on appeal. Stephen Tuson, a law professor at Johannesburgs University of Witwatersrand, said the state would arguably be able to appeal on dolus eventualis (which is Latin for indirect intent). How can you shoot four bullets through a door and not foresee their death?, he told a news outlet.
Posted on: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 21:30:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015