|
 But whether he will be heading back to jail for a long spell or
enjoying the relative comfort of house arrest will depend on how the
Supreme Court of Appeal interprets the legal principle known by the
Latin words "dolus eventualis".
It refers to whether a person foresees the possibility that his or
her action will cause death but carries on regardless. It was the
crucial element in High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa's decision in
the original trial to convict Pistorius of culpable homicide instead
of the more serious offense of murder.
The previously arcane phrase - which means "eventual fraud" - became
ubiquitous during the seven-month trial, from conversations to news
columns. When the state opened its appeal on Tuesday seeking to
change the conviction to murder, one media commentator even called
it "Dolus Eventualis Day".
Judge Masipa said prosecutors had failed to prove Pistorius intended
to kill Steenkamp, a law graduate turned model, when he fired
through the toilet door at his house in an upmarket suburb of
Pretoria in the early hours of Valentine's Day, 2013.
Pistorius had argued that he thought an intruder was in the toilet
and that he assumed his girlfriend was safely in bed and out of
firing range, a version the state has rejected.
"The submission we made is that there was foresight, that (when) a
person (is) standing behind a door in a small cubicle, if you fire
four shots into that, a person will die," prosecutor Gerrie Nel told
the Supreme Court, opening the challenge on Tuesday.
The prison service released Pistorius on parole last month after he
had served about a year of a five-year sentence for culpable
homicide, the equivalent of manslaughter.
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court could convict Pistorius of
murder itself, which has a minimum 15-year sentence, order a retrial
or throw out the state's appeal.
LEGAL CONCEPT WITH LATIN NAME
The working definition of dolus eventualis in South African law,
taken from the 1963 case of State vs. Malinga, suggests that the
intent could apply equally with regard to the intruder Pistorius
says he believed was behind the door.
[to top of second column] |
Pistorius was not present at the Supreme Court hearing, a stark
contrast with last year's sensational trial during which the track
star frequently sobbed uncontrollably as graphic details of
Steenkamp's death emerged.
The shooting and trial marked a sensational fall from grace for
Pistorius, whose lower legs were amputated when he was a baby but
who went on to become a global sporting hero, dubbed "Blade Runner"
because of the prosthetic blades he used to compete.
"This will be a trend-setting case, it will definitely be
precedent," said advocate Inez Bezuidenhout, director of the
University of the Free State's law clinic.
During a terse exchange on Tuesday, Appeal's Court Justice Eric
Leach told Pistorius' lead defense counsel Barry Roux he believed
Masipa's analysis of dolus eventualis "seems to be wrong".
Roux, in turn, insisted Masipa had not made any errors in law, but
"may or may not have committed factual errors."
Some legal experts are worried that the verdict by Judge Masipa
could set a bad legal precedent in a country with one of the highest
crime rates in the world.
"Had the judgment by Judge Masipa stood, that would have had a
detrimental impact in my view on the criminal justice system," legal
analyst Brenda Wardle said.
The Supreme Court of Appeal is expected to rule before the end of
the year.
(Editing by James Macharia and Angus MacSwan)
[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
