Oscar’s sentence not that light - Roux

Oscar Pistorius defence team leader Barry Roux during the appeal against the athlete's five-year sentence. Picture: Kim Ludbrook

Oscar Pistorius defence team leader Barry Roux during the appeal against the athlete's five-year sentence. Picture: Kim Ludbrook

Published Dec 9, 2014

Share

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius's lawyer Barry Roux said it wasn't good enough to simply believe another court would come to a different finding on the athlete’s case.

Roux was responding in the High Court in Pretoria to the State's attempt to appeal Pistorius's culpable homicide conviction and pursue a harsher sentence.

Roux also said there was no material misdirection in Judge Thokozile Masipa's findings, and thus there was no way an appeal would be guaranteed based on how the court understood the facts of the case.

He said the State's assertion that Pistorius would only serve 10 months in prison was untrue.

Roux said that the parole board could only “consider” changing his sentence to one of house arrest after such time, not that it was guaranteed. This meant the sentence was not as light as the State had tried to convey.

Regarding the Seekoei matter - a complex case from 1982 which suggested a competent ruling can not be appealed - Roux said State prosecutor Gerrie Nel had misinterpreted the case law and the State had no right to appeal the case on a legal basis when it presented factual arguments.

Earlier Nel had argued that the State was appealing Pistorius’ murder acquittal, and not the conviction of culpable homicide, meaning the Seekoei legislation did not apply.

Nel said the appeal bid focuses on “a question of the law” rather than the facts of the case, even though the defence has attempted to argue the judge's finding was based entirely on facts and thus can't be appealed.

Roux said if the factual finding of the court was that Pistorius did not intend to kill, Pistorius could not be found guilty of dolus eventualis, which explained the court's ruling.

He accused the State of trying to manipulate the definition of dolus eventualis and the factual findings of the court, which could not be the basis of an appeal.

Roux commended Masipa for correctly interpreting the law, and said the State were simply dissatisfied with the outcome of the case.

Judge Masipa said she would provide her decision on whether the appeal could go ahead on Wednesday morning.

[email protected]

The Star

Related Topics: