Oscar Pistorius will hear court's dolus eventualis ruling - eventually

The five appeal judges hearing the case of Oscar Pistorius will take some time to think about their ruling after reserving judgment on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Tuesday heard arguments why Paralympian athlete Pistorius’s conviction of culpable homicide should be converted to that of murder.

The appeal court heard arguments on questions of law reserved for its consideration by the high court. One of these is whether the high court in Pretoria correctly applied the principles of dolus eventualis to the facts and the conduct of Pistorius. Dolus eventualis means that an accused who foresees that someone may be killed, reconciles himself with that possibly and proceeds, is guilty of murder.

Another question was whether the high court correctly conceived and applied to the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence and pertaining to multiple defences by the accused.

The state wants the appeal court, if it finds in its favour, to give judgment that it believes ought to have been given at the trial court - that is a conviction on murder.

The legal team for Pistorius opposed the application by the state and argued that the Criminal Procedure Act does not allow for the reservation of a question of law, which in reality was a question of fact.

The appeal judges will now inform the parties when it is ready to deliver its judgment.

Pistorius, 28, was acquitted of murder in September last year but was found guilty of culpable homicide. He shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, 29, through a locked door in his Pretoria home on February 14 2013.

Pistorius claimed he fired the four shots through the door of the toilet in the bathroom adjoining his bedroom believing that there was an intruder inside and that his life and that of Steenkamp were in danger.

In his argument for the state, prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Pistorius was a poor witness who relied on a plethora of defences. Nel said the defence Pistorius elected to use was rejected by the court, but instead the court elected another defence on his behalf and this was not allowed.

Nel agreed with Judge of Appeal Eric Leach when he asked whether Pistorius must have foreseen that his action would result in the death of a person behind the door.

“Even on the finding that he did not know it was Steenkamp behind the toilet door, it did not matter. Even if he was under the impression that Reeva was in bed, he had necessary intent to bring [about] the demise of the person behind the door,” Leach asked, and Nel agreed.

Defence advocate Barry Roux SC, who endured lengthier questioning from the judges than Nel, denied that the high court did not apply the law correctly to the facts.

“[Judge Thokozile Masipa] made crucial factual findings. She found [Pistorius] genuinely believed his life was in danger. He genuinely believed that [Steenkamp] was in the bedroom,” Roux said.

Pistorius was sentenced to a five-year prison term but was released into correctional supervision last month after spending close to one year in prison.