Our society has been ridiculed for its recent obsession with
reality TV and celebrity life. The fascination has stemmed from the new ways in
which we can access information online and through social media. This obsessive
frenzy can be seen clearly in the past few weeks as paralympian Oscar Pistorius
stands trial in South Africa.
The media and public have been given an opportunity to delve
into Pistorius’ private life and the raw emotion in the court room has hooked
not only the nation of South Africa but the World. The case has fascinated the
public due to the tragedy of its story. This is a story of love, hate, anger,
extreme sorrow and tragically death. People have already drawn their own conclusions
based on speculation which will probably change several times before the trial
ends. Despite the celebrity appeal of the case it is a terrific legal battle
that will surely fascinate anyone with an interest in the law, like myself.
There are many questions yet to be answered. We may never
know the full details of what happened that night but it now comes down to
which side can prove what. The court must now ask themselves whether or not
Pistorius knew it was his girlfriend behind the door? If it was her, had they
been fighting, did he pre meditate killing her? If they find he was not aware
it was his girlfriend, late Reeva Steenkamp, behind the door then was it
reasonable self-defence? If it was a reasonable response then was it still a negligent
killing? If it was not reasonable self-defence then was it manslaughter?
The state are claiming that it was pre meditated murder. To
be guilty of murder the killing must be unlawful and intentional. Proving
Pistorius’ intent will prove difficult for the defence. To prove this they will
mainly base it around claims of a fight that night between the couple, their
previous relationship and Reeva’s alleged fear of Oscar. Whatsapp messages were
read out where she told Pistorius that sometimes she was scared of him. However
this does not give concrete proof or any proof that there was a fight on the
night. The only evidence of a fight on the night is that of ear witnesses who
have claimed they heard a womans’ screams while Pistorius holds that she did
not scream. The state will also attempt to prove that Pistorius is lying to
prove his intention and unlawful killing of his girlfriend.
If Pistorius is found to have not pre meditated killing his
girlfriend or of knowing she was behind the door it will then come down to the
relevant facts of the situation he was in and how the ‘reasonable person’ would
have acted in said situation. The reasonable person in law can be said to be ‘a
composite of a relevant community’s judgment as to how a typical member of said
community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm to the
public.’ Finding this reasonable person will come down to many things including
the culture of South Africa, previous incidents or criminal activity in the
area and the options for self-defence. Added to this is the fact that Pistorius
is in fact missing two of his limbs which means that we must look at what the
reasonable person without both legs from the knee down would do in the situation.
The state may also argue that when acknowledging his disability we must also
acknowledge that as an Olympic medallist Pistorius could be said to be of
stronger physicality than the general public as well.
The most similar case in the history of the South African
legal system is the case of S v De Oliveira. The facts are not dissimilar to
the Pistorius case where the defendant shot and killed a person who he claimed
he believed to be an intruder and providing a threat to the defendant’s life.
In this case the judge looked at what the reasonable person would have done in
this situation and stated that “in those circumstances it is inconceivable that
a reasonable man could have believed that he was entitled to fire at or in the
direction of the persons outside in defence of his life or property.” Despite
the judge believing that it was reasonable for the defendant to fear for his
safety, he found it was not reasonable for him to fire his gun blindly as he
did.
Is shooting at a closed door reasonable self-defence?
Probably not. Can we really call it self-defence if he never saw the alleged
intruder or heard any voice? The key differences between these cases are that Pistorius
never saw his believed ‘intruder’ or was alerted to said intruder.
At the moment it is presumed that Pistorius’ defence will
claim putative private defence. Private defence is where they simply look at
whether a reasonable man would have acted the same way, as previously
discussed. The difference in putative private defence is that we do not
consider lawfulness but culpability in defence. In the putative defence the
accused honestly believes themselves to be in danger, but objectively they are
not, and lacks intention. Therefore this would not be murder case. This claim
takes a heightened level in this case as Pistorius is a double amputee so him
reasonably believing he was in danger but objectively not being in danger could
be a strong claim due to his disability. Again this will all depend on
Pistorius’ cross examination in the coming weeks. In the De Oliveria case the
defendant never testified so the court could not come to an accurate conclusion
on his state of mind. In Pistorius’ case his defence will be well aware of how big
a part Pistorius’ state of mind will play in pleading this type of defence.
This tragic case will no doubt be on everyones’ lips over
the coming weeks. These are a few points that will be no doubt brought up by
both sides. Despite its tragedy this case provides a fascinating insight into
the South African legal system and criminal law. It sometimes feels that the
people involved in the case are forgotten about and that it’s really the state’s
prosecution team versus the defence team. Who can prove it better wins and let’s
hope justice is done on this account.
Leave any comments below and I will do my best to get back
to them. Would be interested to hear any opinions on this article or the case.
