Author: Zanele Dlamini

INTRODUCTION 

In legal history of South Africa, the State v. Pistorius case is acknowledged to be the highest publicized one in the criminal case history (not the only and most important in the public one in a criminal case). This case took the life of Reeva Steenkamp during a disastrous shooting by the famous paraplegic sportsperson by the name of Oscar Pistorius on Valentine’s Day 2013. The case had vast social media coverage (not solely the fact that it was based on Pistorius’ fame and sport), but it became difficult to have legal questions on meaning and in terms of the conduct by an accused person which leads to charges in a criminal case and the value of dolus eventualis on the part of court. 

FACTS

In the year 2013 on Valentine’s Day, the paraplegic Olympian by the name of Oscar Pistorius fired four crucial shots at a bathroom door, which was closed at that time, at his homestead located in Pretoria. This incident claimed the life of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, who at the time was standing behind the closed bathroom door. She died because of a fatal wound shot sustained during the incident. The alleged accused, Oscar Pistorius, never denied the firing of fatal shots through the closed bathroom door but denied that he intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp, who was his girlfriend at that time. He further argued that he fired those shots through the door as he thought that there was a trespasser in their house and the trespasser would possibly be inside the bathroom. Based on Oscar Pistorius’s statement, he was awakened by the sense of danger and a belief after that there might be an intruder inside their homestead, and the intruder is inside their bathroom. He fired four crucial shots without first verifying that his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was inside their bedroom, possibly sleeping next to him. His senses only came after the shots were fired, that Reeva was not inside their bedroom, and that his girlfriend could be the one who was behind the closed bathroom door, whom he thought was an intruder. The court of law challenged all the series of events, implying that a shooting transpired after a heated argument, perhaps. Although there is no traceable evidence in place to conclude that indeed an argument between the couple transpired which led to a fatal shooting thereafter, the case took a different approach by analyzing the state of mind of the alleged accused at the time the incident transpired. 

LEGAL ISSUE

The main legal issue of this case was to assess whether Pistorius intended (mens rea) to kill Reeva Steenkamp during the fatal shooting for him to be charged with murder. The principle of dolus eventualis is a form of intention in South African criminal law. 

In short, Dolus Eventualis can be described as a form of intent where an accused foresees the likelihood of a harmful consequence from their conduct, that death may occur, but proceeds nonetheless and later settles themselves with that conclusion. The major assessment in this case was whether Pistorius subjectively foresaw that shooting several times through the closed bathroom door could claim the life of a person behind that door, despite whether he knew that Reeva Steenkamp was behind the door. If foresight and reconciliation were proved, then Pistorius would be charged with murder. Culpable homicide would be a second conviction if Pistorius were not guilty of murder and if nothing was proved. 

RULE OF LAW 

The state was of the view that Pistorius was indeed intentional in killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp; therefore, the notion of dolus eventualis was present. The court illustrated three reasons why his conduct was seen as intentional:

1. He had knowledge that firing shots multiple times through the closed door may result in taking a person’s life who was behind the door. 
2. Him believing that the person behind the closed door was a trespasser or not does not take away his intention to kill. At this point the correct identity of the intruder is not vital; what’s important is that he foresaw that his conduct has a likelihood of claiming someone’s life.
3.  How he acted can be categorized as being reckless with no respect to human life; that alone fulfills the murder requirements under the doctrine of dolus eventualis.

 The state was of the view that the fatal shooting that claimed Reeva’s life may have stemmed from a heated argument between the couple prior to the incident. This argument was discounted by a lack of evidence. 

In the end the defense found Pistorius not guilty of murder, seeing that he wasn’t about to kill. To back up their case, they gave him four reasons for not being guilty of murder. 

1.His life was then in immediate danger from the belief of someone being an intruder in their homestead, therefore he acted out of fear.

 2.Panic mode clouded his thinking capacities so effectively that he did not perceive that this conduct might potentially mean someone’s life, but he got himself to act out and to save somebody’s life.

3. Life with a physical disability increased his fear which made him respond instantly to the threat. So far, his act can be considered more negligent than murder, therefore, that he is guilty of culpable homicide. 

The defense was that intent should be measured subjectively based on what he foresaw at this instant not on what a reasonable person would have anticipated. 

2014 COURT JUDGMENT 

The case was handled by Judge Masipa who denied that Pistorius intended to commit murder when it relates to culpable homicide because the state did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that he wanted to kill. As Judge Masipa stated, it was far too little evidence that he even knew that someone would die when he opened the door; hence, he was guilty of negligence. The court concluded that his belief that there was an intruder, together with his physical disability, created a reasonable doubt that he had foresight, but his conduct doesn’t equate to that of a reasonable person. 

APPEAL JUDGMENT 

It was held that the legal principles were mismanaged. The correct approach was whether the accused foresaw the possibility of death, not whether the accused had the intention to kill. He should have known that firing shots through a closed door would kill a person. He aims and shoots because he knows that actions are consistent with intention.

 LEGAL REASONING AND PERSONAL COMMENTARY

 As applied and why we did so. There is a point with this trial that to use legal principles just as they are without emotions and inner thoughts, we see the legal need of having intention. This case also shows the difficulty for the trial to prove criminal intent even where fear and self-defense are introduced. In two cases we are the trial court that is more focused on where Pistorius was physically and felt but the appeals court is more concerned with foresight and recklessness; for the appellate court it is much stricter and the trial court is more tailored to that context. The trial court’s perspective was that these are the people’s case and not to put that judge’s decision at odds with laws that will hold that no individual can lie to a lawyer.