Oscar: Leave to appeal conviction granted

South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius attends his murder trial at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on March 11, 2014. Oscar Pistorius's murder trial was set to hear more details on the autopsy of his slain girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a day after the star sprinter threw up as he listened to a graphic account of the gunshot injuries he inflicted on his lover. AFP PHOTO / POOL / KEVIN SUTHERLAND (Photo credit should read Kevin Sutherland/AFP/Getty Images)

South African Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius attends his murder trial at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on March 11, 2014. Oscar Pistorius's murder trial was set to hear more details on the autopsy of his slain girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, a day after the star sprinter threw up as he listened to a graphic account of the gunshot injuries he inflicted on his lover. AFP PHOTO / POOL / KEVIN SUTHERLAND (Photo credit should read Kevin Sutherland/AFP/Getty Images)

Published Dec 10, 2014

Share

Johannesburg - Oscar Pistorius's conviction on culpable homicide will be argued again in the coming year, after the State's bid for leave to appeal the supposedly “inappropriate” ruling was granted on Wednesday morning.

This may mean the athlete could face a murder conviction if the State is successful at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Judge Thokozile Masipa, however, denied the State's application to appeal Pistorius’s sentence.

Pistorius was sentenced to five years in prison for shooting and killing his model girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.

He was also sentenced to three years with five suspended for a separate incident where he accidentally discharged a firearm in an upmarket restaurant.

 

However, the athlete could be released from prison on parole and kept under house arrest by the middle of next year.

 

In her ruling int he High Court in Pretoria on Wednesday morning, Masipa said that the immense public interest surrounding Pistorius as the State had claimed was irrelevant and she had decided based only on the merits of the application.

The defence's claims that Steenkamp's parents were satisfied with the sentencing were also deemed irrelevant.

She acknowledged the State's argument was that another court could rule differently.

However, she said she was not persuaded there was any material misdirection in her sentencing, despite the State calling it “shockingly” light and inappropriate.

Therefore, she denied the State's application to appeal the sentencing.

Moving onto the State's application to appeal the culpable homicide conviction, Masipa said the State had insisted it was arguing on the law surrounding the case, while the defence said the prosecution had actually focused on the facts of the matter instead.

She believed, however, the questions brought by the State were based on the law.

Masipa said she could not believe the chances of a successful appeal were “remote”.

Thus she granted the State the opportunity to appeal the conviction at the Supreme Court of Appeal.

She then ordered the State pay costs for the sentencing application.

Spokesman for the National Prosecuting Authority Nathi Mncubesaid the organisation welcomed Masipa's decision.

"This is what we wanted," he said.

Mncube said from the time they announced the desire to appeal there were aspects of the case that needed to be clarified, which could happen in a higher court.

However, he said the NPA would consider over whether they would petition the Supreme Court over the dismissal of the sentencing appeal.

He would not comment yet on whether the NPA would petition for an urgent, extradited hearing, which could allow the appeal to be heard sooner than usual.

Related Topics: