‘Oscar is paying Reeva’s family’

Oscar Pistorius attends his sentencing hearing at the High Court in Pretoria. Photo: Themba Hadebe

Oscar Pistorius attends his sentencing hearing at the High Court in Pretoria. Photo: Themba Hadebe

Published Oct 14, 2014

Share

Pretoria - Oscar Pistorius has been giving monthly payments to the Steenkamp family in what a defence witness believes is a sign of genuine remorse.

This was revealed at his sentencing proceedings on Tuesday by a second probation officer, who suggested a prison sentence for the athlete may be too harsh for killing Reeva Steenkamp.

Annette Vergeer is the fourth witness called by Pistorius's defence team to try to convince Judge Thokozile Masipa to provide a lenient sentence for the athlete, who was found guilty of culpable homicide in September.

The final defence witness, Vergeer is a probation officer and social worker with the Department of Social Services but also in private practice. She constructed a report for the defence after the team contacted her, and told the court she focused exclusively on probation work and handled numerous cases per month.

Vergeer explained she had contacted and interviewed Pistorius for the psycho-social report, but insisted she had not been influenced by the defence.

However, she had not interviewed the Steenkamp family as they had declined the opportunity through their lawyer.

Vergeer did meet with the prosecution's Gerrie Nel, however, who believed that a prison stay is the only suitable sentence for the athlete.

She also noted that Nel believed Pistorius had been dealing with his disability for many years, and this should not be used as a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

She said Pistorius was aware of the consequences of what happened to Steenkamp, and was willing to sacrifice anything if she could bring her back to life.

Vergeer said that the purpose of sentencing is not to satisfy public opinion, but rather the public interest.

She believed the athlete had shown genuine remorse, with his public apologies, displays of emotion and offers to provide the Steenkamp family with money to help support them - which they accepted, she said.

She believed that a prison sentence would be unlikely to help Pistorius become a productive member of society.

Vergeer said his disability would add to his difficulty in prison and leave him a broken man with a limited future.

If he receives community service and a suspended sentence or correctional supervision, Vergeer believes he is unlikely to re-offend, has time to learn from his mistakes and influence others.

She believed that under correctional supervision (house arrest), he could be monitored and propery rehabilitated.

In response to a question by defence counsel Barry Roux, Vergeer also suggested that Pistorius work with other disabled children, rather than the usual cleaning that makes up general community service.

“It would mean the world to them,” said Vergeer.

She said the circumstances in South Africa's overcrowded prisons are not suitable for Pistorius, rampant with sodomy, gang violence and drugs. She also mentioned the lack of safety railings in the prison showers, nor do they generally have the correct medical facilities for someone like Pistorius.

She believed that Pistorius's sentence began on the day he shot Steenkamp, and that prison - especially the exposure of his stumps to other prisoners - would exacerbate his mental issues.

He also would be unable to defend himself should the threat of violence arise.

In his cross-examination, Nel immediately pointed out that Vergeer had constructed her report in her private capacity, not as a worker of the state.

She admitted she had been paid by the defence to build the report, and had spent some time with the team.

Nel asked about whether Pistorius had accepted the court's findings as the truth. Vergeer said he had simply accepted that he had fired the shots that caused Steenkamp's death and respected the court's judgment.

Nel continued on the same line of questioning to which Vergeer said twice: “I am not a legal expert”.

Eventually, Judge Masipa had to step in to tell Vergeer that she had to answer the question or risk being on the stand for days.

Vergeer said that Pistorius had understood that he believed an intruder was behind the toilet door and that he fired upon them.

Nel then moved onto Vergeer's reasoning for her recommendations, and asked her through a series of questions if she recognised the seriousness of what Pistorius had done.

She said she'd taken the details of the crime into account, and the effects on the Steenkamp family, even though she had not been able to meet with them.

Nel then interrogated the conditions in prison for a double-amputee like Pistorius. Vergeer said that a person like the athlete was even more vulnerable in prison to the harsh conditions.

“Disabled people should not be in prison?” asked Nel.

“That is not what I'm saying,” said Vergeer, who explained that it is simply much more difficult for such people inside prison facilities.

Nel accused Vergeer of using conjured examples of what could possibly happen to the athlete in prison, rather than providing concrete, accurate statistics. For example, Vergeer had used prison statistics that included awaiting-trial prisoners to back up her claims that the facilities are overcrowded, despite these two types of prisoners being kept separately.

“Your whole report is based on an incorrect premise,” said Nel.

Nel continued his cross-examination by arguing strongly about the nature of the monthly payments Pistorius has been making to the family of his slain girlfriend. 

Nel questioned Vergeer's assertions that Pistorius had been paying monthly sums to the Steenkamp family, asking where she had heard this. Vergeer said this was what she was told by the defence team. 

Nel told the court that the family had rejected an amount of R375 000 from Pistorius.

He said June Steenkamp had outright said she did not want "blood money". 

Vergeer said she was only informed that the money had been rejected on Tuesday, meaning she could not alter her report. 

Nel put on record that the money they received would be paid back, "every cent". 

He then mentioned how the defence had argued numerous times that Pistorius' funds were very limited, so any further monthly payments would be impossible.

Vergeer surmised that Pistorius could have paid it with the help of his family members. 

Nel returned to Vergeer's statements on the terrible conditions in local prisons, saying she had based all of her evidence on a visit to the Johannesburg Prison ten years ago and a visit to Krugersdorp Prison two years ago. Vergeer said she had been to prisons more recently but Nel confirmed she had only been in the areas designated for social workers in recent times. 

He then asked if there was just no prison in the country that could look after Pistorius. Vergeer said that her statement referred "in general" to the prison system. 

Nel insisted that she couldn't accurately say what Pistorius' prison conditions would be like, and whether her generalised statements would even apply if the athlete was sent to prison.

Nel told the court that some people - implying Pistorius - are kept in single cells with access to toilet and washing facilities.

The advocate also questioned how Pistorius could continue working even under house arrest.

Vergeer said she did not know what Pistorius planned to do, however, and whether he would seek any employment. 

Nel asked if in the event Pistorius had been convicted of murder whether she would have recommended that the athlete move to prison. Vergeer continuously evaded the question, arguing that individual circumstances of an accused had to be examined for such a recommendation. 

The advocate determined that when she was asked to make a recommendation in the matter of Molemo "Jub Jub" Maarohanye, she also recommended correctional supervision for the murder conviction then faced by the disgraced hip-hop star. 

She apparently told that court that prison conditions were "devastating".

Related Topics: