Nel brings up #OscarPistorius temper tantrums

Oscar Pistorius is seen inside the dock at the high court in Pretoria for his sentencing hearing. Picture: Phill Magakoe

Oscar Pistorius is seen inside the dock at the high court in Pretoria for his sentencing hearing. Picture: Phill Magakoe

Published Jun 13, 2016

Share

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius's temper tantrums, his remorsefulness and recent choice to speak out in the media have come under fire during his sentencing proceedings, with the State clearly pushing for a lengthy prison sentence for the athlete.

In December, Pistorius was convicted of murder for the 2013 killing of his model girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) overturned his previous conviction of culpable homicide.

The SCA believed Pretoria High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa had erred in ruling Pistorius had no intention to kill when he fired four bullets on a closed bathroom door at his Pretoria estate. The SCA found that by firing on the door, regardless of whether an intruder was behind it or not, Pistorius should have known that the person inside the bathroom could have been killed. He was therefore found guilty of murder dolus eventualis, or murder with indirect intent.

Pistorius this year launched an application at the Constitutional Court to overturn the SCA ruling, but the apex court chose not to hear it.

On Monday morning, sentencing proceedings for the Paralympian began at the High Court in Pretoria with his defence team, led by Advocate Barry Roux, calling psychologist Professor Jonathan Scholtz to the testify.

Scholtz said Pistorius' deteriorating mental health meant that he should not serve a prison sentence for the murder, and be given an opportunity to do community service and charity work instead. He also said Pistorius wasn't mentally well enough to testify during these proceedings.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel began his cross-examination by asking whether Scholtz understood that its more than the interests of just the accused taken into account during sentencing. Nel then brought up how Pistorius at his previous appearance in April, confronted police investigator, Colonel Mike van Aardt saying the officer hadn't done his job, asking for space while talking with his family.

Nel said Pistorius's legal team had called the State later to apologise for the incident. Scholtz said this could have been caused by Pistorius' Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and that he could have been irritable and agitated.

The prosecutor then brought up that Pistorius had recently done an interview with ITV - set to be screened soon. Nel said that Pistorius had given a version of the night of the shooting during the new interview, something which he wasn't willing to testify about in court.

The prosecutor said that Pistorius had been declared an unreliable and dishonest witness during the initial trial, and that he had failed to offer an acceptable explanation for why he had shot on the night of the incident.

Scholtz said it wasn't necessary to discuss the incident during his interviews with the athlete, as a court judgment had already declared what had happened.

Nel argued that Pistorius had not been honest about, nor was remorseful for what he had done.

“His disposition is that he killed her, he took her life,” said Scholtz.

Nel said that once again Pistorius was sorry for himself, that he had taken a life, rather than having genuine remorse.

Scholtz said he couldn't clinically substantiate Pistorius only feeling sorry for himself.

Nel then attacked Pistorius's alleged deterioration of mental health, asking the professor if he was aware of Pistorius's medicine being increased since his incarceration.

Scholtz said he did not know.

Nel asked if Scholtz knew of Pistorius's temper tantrums.

In January of this year, Pistorius apparently slammed a table when dealing with a correctional services employee out of frustration, according to Nel. The prosecutor also pointed out that Pistorius also refused to greet the same employee as he came in, shaking hands with all of the others in court.

Scholtz said he wasn't aware of these incidents.

Nel argued that Scholtz's testimony that the Steenkamps had forgiven Pistorius was not entirely accurate. He said that the Steenkamps had forgiven the athlete for their daughter's sake, not Pistorius's.

Nel indicated that June Steenkamp had said in her own book, that she was “unmoved by (Pistorius') apology”.

The prosecutor also referred to Scholtz's earlier statement that Pistorius had recognised the consequences of his actions and had taken responsibility for them.

“He said he had taken a life, it was wrong... Even though he didn't know it was her behind the door, he still accepted he killed her,” Scholtz responded.

Scholtz said Pistorius recognised he had intentionally fired on the bathroom door, not intending to kill Steenkamp. Nel immediately said that this was something Pistorius never told the court, and that he had given yet another version of the incident.

“Did he admit that he intentionally fired towards someone?” Nel asked.

Roux objected, saying Nel was arguing for dolus directus or direct intent to kill, and this was unfair on the witness. After rephrasing the question, Scholtz said Pistorius did admit to intending to shoot on the person behind the door.

“I put to you that that's the first version of the intention to shoot that we've had in this court,” said Nel.

The prosecutor asked if Pistorius ever approached the Steenkamp family to apologise after his stay in prison.

Scholtz said that Pistorius indicated he might have approached them later, after the current court proceedings.

However, Nel then said that Pistorius's legal team had sent a letter in April to try and organise a meeting with the Steenkamp family.

The State argued that Scholtz's report and testimony hadn't taken into account the impact on Steenkamp's family. Nel said that the professor had also focused on the negative media attention on Pistorius.

Scholtz said Pistorius had mentioned the concern he had on his future and the legacy of the media reports could have on his future children.

Nel also attacked Scholtz's claims that Pistorius had been confined to his cell most days, which he said was simply untrue. According to Nel, Pistorius was allowed to move around his section in his prison, with an open cell door.

Scholtz said that someone had come into his section and had tried to assault the athlete.

Nel immediately denied this, saying it was never reported to Correctional Services. He said the complaints register was in the State's possession.

When Scholtz tried to respond that Pistorius didn't want to complain and upset the status quo at the prison, Nel shot back: “He complained about anything... He was open to complain and he did so often.”

Nel also said that Pistorius had lied to Scholtz about hearing a rape and subsequent suicide in the prison, as that never happened.

The prosecutor also revealed Pistorius had been discovered on July 19, 2015 to have been hiding illegal medicine in his prison cell, a fact Scholtz was also unaware of.

Nel asked the court to allow the State's experts to examine Scholtz's report to properly scrutinise it before continuing cross-examination.

[email protected]

The Star

Related Topics: