Court might have benefited from an 'in loco' visit

After visiting the house where murder-accused Oscar Pistorius shot dead his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, Sunday Times reporter Werner Swart asked lawyer and trial commentator Ulrich Roux whether the court should have conducted an inspection of the scene .

What are the advantages of visiting the scene of the crime during a trial?

An inspection in loco is always advantageous for a judge because it places the entire incident in perspective. When presenting evidence during a trial, it is left up to the judge to use his or her imagination to grasp the scene where the alleged incident took place.

Conducting an inspection in loco during which the judge, accompanied by the opposing parties and certain witnesses, visits the actual scene paints a much clearer portrait of what, in fact, transpired.

Aspects such as distance and size can be misconstrued by witnesses testifying.

When a judge physically sees the alleged crime scene with his or her own eyes, it limits the possibility of misconceptions to a large extent.

The state and the defence can apply to the court for an inspection in loco to be conducted, whereafter the court can either grant or refuse such an application. The judge can also make a ruling that an inspection in loco be held to provide clarity for the court.

Why do you think there was no inspection of the house?

An attempt was made to reconstruct the bathroom cubicle in court and the actual bathroom door was also used as an exhibit in court.

Both parties must have felt that having the door and the reconstruction of the cubicle in court was sufficient for the court to properly comprehend the scene where the incident took place.

It is not often seen in practice that a presiding officer orders an inspection in loco without an application for it being made by either of the parties.

In light of this, Judge Thokozile Masipa must have felt that she fully understood and comprehended the scene where the incident took place after all the evidence had been led by the state and the defence.

How could such a visit have benefited the court?

It would have provided more clarity in terms of the size of the bathroom; the size of the cubicle in which Steenkamp was shot; the distance and width of the corridor down which Pistorius walked to get to the bathroom; and the close proximity of the neighbours and the angle of Pistorius's balcony when compared to those of the neighbours.

These are all factors that played an important role during the trial and valuable testimony was heard about them.

You have seen the Sunday Times video taken inside the house. What were your immediate thoughts?

My immediate reaction was that the bathroom cubicle, as well as Pistorius's bedroom and the balcony, were much smaller than I had imagined. Pistorius's neighbours are also much closer to his house than I had imagined.