UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Other High Profile Cases and Persons of Interest => Oscar Pistorius and the killing of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp. => Topic started by: Sherlock Holmes on February 28, 2014, 07:39:00 PM
-
Extracted from SouthAfrica.info (Very nice, informative site).
The Pistorius case and SA's legal system
20 February 2013
South Africa woke up on Valentine's Day, 14 February, to the news that champion paraplegic athlete Oscar Pistorius had shot his girlfriend of four months, Reeva Steenkamp, in his R4-million home in Pretoria.
The state has brought a schedule 6 case of premeditated murder against the para-olympian. If he is found guilty, Pistorius will get a life sentence, which is 25 years. He will only be eligible to apply for parole after serving that term, under a schedule 6 conviction.
Pistorius began applying for bail in the Pretoria Magistrate's Court on Tuesday, with magistrate Desmond Nair saying that he would, "for the purpose of this application, at this point in time, ... consider this an offence listed under schedule 6".
Given this, and the seriousness of the charge, Pistorius's lawyers will have to prove exceptional circumstances if he is to be granted bail.
The hearing continued on Wednesday, with his defence team, led by advocate Barry Roux SC, having indicated that they would bring evidence to support their argument that the shooting constituted a schedule 5, not a schedule 6, offence.
Schedule 5 versus schedule 6 offences
In South African, schedule 5 offences include murder, attempted murder, rape, drug-related crimes, especially where the drugs are found to be worth R50 000 or more, corruption, extortion, fraud, forgery or theft to the value of R500 000, the illegal dealing or smuggling of firearms, and assault on a child under the age of 16.
If convicted of a schedule 5 offence, the minimum sentence is 15 years for a first offender.
Schedule 6 offences include murder, including premeditated murder, the killing of a law enforcement officer, or killing as a result of rape or robbery with aggravating circumstances. Also falling in this category is rape, which includes gang rape or rape by a suspect who knows he is HIV-positive. Rape of a person under 16 years, or a mentally or physically disabled person, is also a schedule 6 offence.
Robbery with the use of a firearm, where grievous bodily harm results, or a car is stolen, is also a schedule 6 offence.
South Africa's legal system: no jury
Pistorius's case is being handled by the National Prosecuting Authority, the government agency that handles criminal cases in the country, with a team of prosecutors.
The police work with this agency, presenting evidence to the authority, which then decides whether there is sufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution.
It is more than likely, given the seriousness of Pistorius's case, that it will be heard in the country's High Court.
South Africa's legal system is based on Roman-Dutch law, and hence is not a jury system.
The highest court in the country is the Constitutional Court, based in Johannesburg and presided over by 11 judges, and created after the country's first democratic elections in 1994. The judges make decisions and judgements about issues that have to do with the Constitution. Being the highest court in the country, no other court can overturn these decisions. Judgements relating to the Constitution from the High Court can be taken to the Constitutional Court.
The next highest court in the country is the Supreme Court of Appeal, based in Bloemfontein in the Free State, which only deals with cases that come from the High Court. Only the Constitutional Court can change decisions from the Supreme Court of Appeal. Three to five judges sit in this court, and final judgements are made by a majority decision.
High Courts
In South Africa, the High Court hears cases which are too serious for the lower-level Magistrate's Court, or when a Magistrate's Court's decision is challenged. These cases are usually presided over by one judge, but if a case on appeal is heard, then two judges will hear the case.
Or, if the case is about a very serious crime, then a judge and two experienced and often retired advocates or magistrates will assist in the case. They are referred to as assessors. The judge can override their opinions, but they are usually used to help the judge make a decision.
The High Court divisions have jurisdiction or the right to hear a case over provincial areas in which they are situated. The decisions of the High Courts are binding on Magistrates' Courts within their areas of jurisdiction. Usually only advocates appear for their clients in the High Court.
They usually only hear civil matters involving more than R100 000, and serious criminal cases. They also hear any appeals or reviews from Magistrates' Courts.
There are 14 high courts in South Africa. Circuit Courts are also part of the High Court system. They sit at least twice a year, moving around to serve far-flung rural areas.
Other courts that fall under the country's High Court system are Special Income Tax Courts, Labour Courts and Labour Appeal Courts, Divorce Courts, and the Land Claims Court.
The Master of the High Court administers cases of deceased estates, liquidations, registration of trusts, among other areas.
The Sheriff of the High Court is an impartial and independent official of the Court, appointed by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, who must execute all documents issued by the court, including summonses, notices, warrants and court orders.
Magistrates Courts
South Africa's Magistrates' Courts are lower courts which deal with the less serious criminal and civil cases. They are divided into regional courts and district courts.
Regional Magistrates' Courts only deal with criminal cases like murder, rape, armed robbery and serious assault, whereas district Magistrates' Courts deal with criminal and civil cases. The magistrate makes decisions in a Magistrate's Court sometimes with the support of lay assessors.
A regional Magistrate's Court can sentence a guilty person for a period up to 20 years, or can impose a maximum fine of R300 000.
District Magistrates' Courts try less serious cases, which exclude cases of murder, treason, rape, terrorism, or sabotage. They can sentence a person to a maximum of 3 years in prison or a maximum fine of R100 000.
Ordinary Magistrates' Courts can hear civil cases when the claims are for less than R100 000. They will not deal with cases involving divorce, arguments about a person's will, or matters where a person's sanity is in question.
There are a number of Magistrates' Courts that are specialised to be better able to deal with certain types of case, such as children's courts, sexual offences courts, small claims courts, equality courts, community courts, maintenance courts, and courts for chiefs and headmen.
Read more: http://www.southafrica.info/news/legal-200213.htm#.UxDkjeNdWSo#ixzz2ueBiTFVO
-
Obviously Oscar Pistorius' story, as he tells it so far, contains more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
The question is how matters will play out in the South African court.
-
Like the O J Simpson case, I believe the defense will make a huge issue of police incompetence. The original detective walked through the crime scene without protection on his shoes, etc., etc.
-
Tim, any decent websites dedicated to the OP case?
-
Like the O J Simpson case, I believe the defense will make a huge issue of police incompetence. The original detective walked through the crime scene without protection on his shoes, etc., etc.
I predict a white-wash, just like O J Simpson. And Jonbenet Ramsey.
-
Like the O J Simpson case, I believe the defense will make a huge issue of police incompetence. The original detective walked through the crime scene without protection on his shoes, etc., etc.
There are certain cases, like Simpson, Pistorius, Dewani, Ramsey, Bamber....that are so obvious they actually offend the sensibilities. But there will always be a tiny group of people who defend them. Even Ian Brady has got supporters. And Ian Huntley and Mark Bridger get fan mail. There are some sick and sorry folk out there.
-
Like the O J Simpson case, I believe the defense will make a huge issue of police incompetence. The original detective walked through the crime scene without protection on his shoes, etc., etc.
This was certainly one of the main reasons he was given bail, the 'state' having failed to conduct itself professionally in its initial creation of the case against him.
-
There are certain cases, like Simpson, Pistorius, Dewani, Ramsey, Bamber....that are so obvious they actually offend the sensibilities. But there will always be a tiny group of people who defend them. Even Ian Brady has got supporters. And Ian Huntley and Mark Bridger get fan mail. There are some sick and sorry folk out there.
Indeed! Some people even hero worship their favourite killer to the extent they even make fawning websites and creepy forums to show their adulation! This would be laughable if it wasn't so painful and insulting both to the victims memory and their living relatives. Shameful!
-
Obviously Oscar Pistorius' story, as he tells it so far, contains more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.
The question is how matters will play out in the South African court.
I haven't followed this case closely. The legal issue will presumably be whether it was a tragic accident or a premeditated murder.
The politics behind it may be a different kettle of fish.
-
I haven't followed this case closely. The legal issue will presumably be whether it was a tragic accident or a premeditated murder.
The politics behind it may be a different kettle of fish.
Also there is the matter of the South African legal system which is different from ours. There is no jury, for example, something which may have a bearing on the case.
-
Also there is the matter of the South African legal system which is different from ours. There is no jury, for example, something which may have a bearing on the case.
Yes Sherlock, I believe trials by Jury in South Africa were abolished in 1969.
-
Having watched OP on BBC news in court, I think he made a horrendous mistake. He does sound credible to me even though I had decided he was guilty beforehand but I'm now not so sure, having said that, what type of burglar goes straight into the bathroom and why didn't he shout "Reeva, where are you?" or was it middle of the night, act on instinct?
I am in two minds about this.
-
Having watched OP on BBC news in court, I think he made a horrendous mistake. He does sound credible to me even though I had decided he was guilty beforehand but I'm now not so sure, having said that, what type of burglar goes straight into the bathroom and why didn't he shout "Reeva, where are you?" or was it middle of the night, act on instinct?
I am in two minds about this.
You are the only one I know [Name removed]o who is giving Oscar's story an ounce of credibility; it's impossible! Besides his story full of holes, the very credible neighbours testimony sealed it for me. They all heard a woman's screams before the shots and to me that proves Reeva was murdered by OP.
I think the soon to be heard 'Oscar screams like a woman' testimony will be cringeworthy and laughable in equal measure. I expect Nel to rip it to shreds.
-
You are the only one I know [Name removed]o who is giving Oscar's story an ounce of credibility; it's impossible! Besides his story full of holes, the very credible neighbours testimony sealed it for me. They all heard a woman's screams before the shots and to me that proves Reeva was murdered by OP.
I think the soon to be heard 'Oscar screams like a woman' testimony will be cringeworthy and laughable in equal measure. I expect Nel to rip it to shreds.
Oscar + Shrien = Jasvir Ram Ginday.
-
Tim, I think Joanne has a point.
Oscar could have woken up in a stupor and forgot Reeva was with him. That's what I thought could have happened when the story first broke.
I live by myself and occasionally when I have had friends staying the night I have woken up and thought "what the f*** was that noise?" then after few seconds i remembered I had a mate in the spare room. what if it took Pistorius a bit longer to come to his senses? im not saying that is what happened but its possible.
Even so, if OP really thought it was an intruder in his toilet cubicle, it begs another important question. why did he fire 4 times without challenging the intruder first (which is what appears to have happened) so in a way he is still guilty, but of manslaughter
-
Reeva was awake shortly before Pistorius got up to bring the large tripod fan in, one leg of which was blocking the sliding door to the balcony.
She asked him with words to the effect - "What's up Baba, can you not sleep ?"
-
Reeva was awake shortly before Pistorius got up to bring the large tripod fan in, one leg of which was blocking the sliding door to the balcony.
She asked him with words to the effect - "What's up Baba, can you not sleep ?"
So he claims, and he didn't respond if I recall correctly.
I should remember really, I've watched the last 6 days of the trial now.
I need to go back and watch it all from the start, without getting stoned ?>)()<
-
So he claims, and he didn't respond if I recall correctly.
I should remember really, I've watched the last 6 days of the trial now.
I need to go back and watch it all from the start, without getting stoned ?>)()<
It's rivetting to watch Nel in full flow, closing his eyes to concentrate on what sort of question he can think of to catch OP off guard, and getting frustrated with his endless vague replies of "I can't remember". He was reprimanded once by the judge for calling OP a liar.
-
It's rivetting to watch Nel in full flow, closing his eyes to concentrate on what sort of question he can think of to catch OP off guard, and getting frustrated with his endless vague replies of "I can't remember". He was reprimanded once by the judge for calling OP a liar.
Yes, I've been captivated by Nel, he has ripped every minutiae of Oscars fabricated details apart and proven beyond doubt, to me & anyone with an ounce of sense imo, that Oscar is "Tailoring his evidence".
Nothing has escaped his attention & whenever Oscar gets pulled on something, which is happening quite a lot, he puts the waterworks on.
-
Yes, I've been captivated by Nel, he has ripped every minutiae of Oscars fabricated details apart and proven beyond doubt, to me & anyone with an ounce of sense imo, that Oscar is "Tayloring his evidence".
Nothing has escaped his attention & whenever Oscar gets pulled on something, which is happening quite a lot, he puts the waterworks on.
He might beat his body and make it his slave, but he's making Walter the Softy look like Rambo. So fake.
-
This was a real telling bit today,
(up to 1:06.30)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMsUK8mhGFw&feature=player_embedded#t=3620
Note the look from Nel to the judge.
'We were waiting for you to say you heard the magazine rack, that's why you changed your aim.
-
Interesting fact today I didn't know; the verdict is reached by the majority decision of the judge and the two assessors. In theory the two assessors could overrule the judge's verdict although this very rarely happens.
The only real difference between the judge and assessors is the judge alone decides on questions of law during the trial!