Supreme Court of Appeal exceeded its limited jurisdiction, Oscar Pistorius’ legal team

The Supreme Court of Appeal “exceeded its limited jurisdiction” and acted “unlawfully and unconstitutionally when it rejected the factual finding of the trial court and replaced it with a contrary finding of its own”, this is argument Oscar Pistorius‘ legal team will be taking to the Constitutional Court. Google+

Oscar _ PistoriusIn the early hours of February 14, 2013 Oscar Pistorius shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The scene of the crime was his then home in Silverwoods Estate in Pretoria in the Gauteng province of South Africa. He told the police that he had fired four shots through a closed bathroom door because he believed there was an intruder in his house.

In the 2014 murder trial presided over by Judge Thokozile Masipa at the North Gauteng High Court Oscar Pistorius was found not guilty of murder but was found guilty of a lesser crime, culpable homicide. Furthermore, he was found guilty of other charges which came up in the wake of the Reeve Steenkamp shooting.

Judge Thokozile Masipa’s findings were met with dismay. She later sentence Oscar Pistorius to 5 years. The sentence itself inspired ridicule and mockery towards Judge Masipa and the South African justice system. He served a year of his 5 years sentence at Kgosi Mampuru II prison in Pretoria, Gauteng before being released in October 2015.

In December 2015 Oscar Pistorius was found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court of Appeal in a unanimous judgment. The sitting judge referred the matter back to the trial court for a new sentence to be considered. His legal team has set out to challenge this ruling at the constitutional court.

Andrew Fawcett was quoted saying in the papers filed, “exceeded its limited jurisdiction” and acted “unlawfully and unconstitutionally when it rejected the factual finding of the trial court and replaced it with a contrary finding of its own”. He went on to say, the Supreme Court of Appeal’s “exceeding of its jurisdiction in this regard goes to the very heart of its decision that the applicant was guilty of murder”.

“The  Supreme Court of Appeal applied only the first component of dolus eventualis (foresight and reconciliation) and failed to appreciate the inextricable relationship between the first component of dolus eventualis (foresight and reconciliation) and the second component of dolus eventualis (knowledge of unlawfulness),” as per papers filed by Andrew Fawcett.

The Directorate of Public Prosecutions has until January 21 to respond to the papers while the Constitutional Court  has yet to indicate whether it is willing to hear the appeal.

beki

Join the Discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

arrow