A judge “overemphasised” Oscar Pistorius’s disability and was far too lenient on him, prosecutors said as they tried to convince a South African court to more than double his prison sentence for the murder of girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.
“Murder is murder,” chief prosecutor Andrea Johnson told a five-judge panel at the Supreme Court of Appeal.
She asked the judges to overturn the double-amputee athlete’s initial six-year sentence and give him the prescribed minimum of 15 years. There is no death penalty in South Africa.
If the court agrees, Pistorius, 30, could remain in prison until after he is 40.
The judges did not deliver a decision on Friday. Typically, Supreme Court judges take a couple of weeks before the senior judge returns to read out the decision, which is made through a simple majority.
Nearly five years after the once-admired Olympic runner first appeared in court for shooting Ms Steenkamp multiple times through a closed toilet door at his home, his fate is still not certain.
He was not at Friday’s hearing as he serves his sentence at a prison near the capital, Pretoria. He has served more than a year of his six-year term.
Ms Steenkamp’s mother, June Steenkamp, did attend. Speaking outside the courthouse, her lawyer said the family supported prosecutors’ attempt to get a longer sentence.
Prosecutors had two arguments to make to the court. First, they needed to apply for permission to appeal against Pistorius’s sentence. They were asked by the judges to also present their arguments for why, if their appeal is allowed, his sentence should be increased.
This is the second time prosecutors have gone to the Supreme Court in the central city of Bloemfontein to challenge a decision by Judge Thokozile Masipa, who presided over Pistorius’s trial.
In 2015, prosecutors successfully appealed against Judge Masipa’s ruling that Pistorius was not guilty of murder. The court overturned the verdict of culpable homicide — or manslaughter — and convicted him of murder.
Judge Masipa then sentenced Pistorius to six years in prison for murder, a term just one year longer than her original sentence for manslaughter. Prosecutors called that sentence “shockingly” light.
Judges can deviate from prescribed minimum sentences if there are compelling circumstances. The prosecution says there were no compelling reasons.
“What we are saying is the court exercised its discretion inappropriately,” prosecutor Johnson said, calling the six-year sentence “unjust”.
She said Pistorius had still not shown “genuine remorse” for killing Ms Steenkamp and that Judge Masipa put the athlete’s personal circumstances and his disability ahead of the need for “retribution” when she sentenced him.
Pistorius claimed he mistook Ms Steenkamp for a dangerous intruder hiding in his bathroom in the pre-dawn hours of Valentine’s Day 2013 when, without his prosthetic legs on and standing on his stumps, he shot four times through the cubicle door.
Judge Masipa’s initial sentence was appropriate in the circumstances, Pistorius’s defence lawyers said, and his disability was not exaggerated. He had both his legs amputated below the knee when he was a baby because of a congenital condition.
“Of course his disability is mentioned, but it can’t not be mentioned,” defence lawyer Kelly Phelps said. “It is one of the factors of this case. We can’t magic away his disability.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel