He should get 15 years

It was noted in the case quoted, ‘a proper balancing of the relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances would justify a sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment’.

A proper balance, which is exactly what Masipa failed to do and is one of the principles on which the appeal is based, ie the Court misdirected itself in finding that the aggravating factors in casu are outweighed by the mitigating factors.

Aggravating Factors

The accused used a lethal weapon, ie. a high calibre firearm, and ammunition.

The accused fired not one but four shots into the toilet door and never offered an acceptable explanation for having done so.

The accused fired the four shots knowing full well that there was someone behind the door.

The accused had formed the intention to shoot and when he realised that there was someone behind the toilet door

The toilet was a small cubicle and there was no room for escape.

The accused was trained in the use and handling of firearms.

The accused never fired a warning shot.

Mitigating Factors

The accused approached the bathroom in the belief that an intruder had entered his house, but of course you only have that on the word of a proven liar

The accused showed ‘remorse’ but of course there is no guarantee whatsoever that remorse was for Reeva, it could just as well have been for the predicament in which he has landed himself.

The accused immediately took steps to save the deceased's life. Well so what! this would be the action of most normal people.

He apologised to the Steenkamps but to be expected as this is just standard defence tactics

Yet Masipa found the paltry and very debatable mitigating circumstances ‘outweighed’ the very significant aggravating factors to the extent she discounted 9 years.

This is such an extreme case of imbalance Pistorius will get 15 years and Masipa will be roasted by the SCA

So in short, the same sentence as the one in the appeal case you quoted.

In that particular case, the offender committed the murder whilst on parole, having served time for armed robbery. Not only was he breaking the terms of his parole by committing murder, but he also was not permitted to be out at a bar in the early hours of the morning. His parole stipulated that he was only allowed out of his house to work. Not only that, but in taking possession of a gun he was also breaking parole.

He got into a fight -not instigated by him - (in a place where he was not permitted to be, ignoring conditions of his parole), but then afterwards deliberately went home to get a gun (which he was not permitted to have, ignoring the courts/parole conditions), and returned. The person he eventually killed tried to run him down, so he fired a shot which hit and stopped his attacker. But then he shot him repeatedly again as he lay on the ground. (which constituted murder, as he chose to repeatedly shoot into the body of a man who he could see posed no threat)

This is so far away from the details in the Pistorius case: frightened disabled man overeacts unlawfully (to the point of murder /DE) to the mistaken belief there was a dangerous intruder near to his bedroom. Courts find he murdered his girlfriend in the mistaken belief he was actually killing / he might kill an intruder.

That other case's sentence was shifted up from 8 to 15 by the SCA. There are significantly more aggravating factors there and significantly fewer mitigating ones.

I cannot see how the SCA could justify a similar sentence upgrade, given the circumstances of Pistorius's case. The mitigating factors are neither paltry nor half as debatable as you make out.

Purely your opinion of course but I think you will find the SCA will not concur with your opinion.

In truth you know that of course

Because they will conclude that none of the mitigating circumstances carry any or very little weight simply because they are neither unique or they carry another reasonable explanation.

It will be 12 – 15 years at a minimum. There is of course argument to make it 15+ years as the aggravating factors totally outweigh the mitigating factors

Oh dear. There's a word beginning with 'm' in the above post (I'll let you find it) that constitutes a mandatory sentence of 15 years. As for the rest of the twaddle above, all based on his version / versions.

Ah, yes his version!!

Now what did the SCA say about his version….

His version varied substantially

This soon changed to another version

There were other inherent improbabilities in his version.

Not looking good for Pisto is it,

He had many versions of events

What a sick and twisted murderer

Hi Jeremy,

I see an irregularity in your earlier post #251 this morning;

Mitigating Factors

The accused immediately took steps to save the deceased's life. Well so what! this would be the action of most normal people.

Did he? I don't think he did. Oh, you must mean the 'show' he put on for his audience starting with the faltering footsteps at the top of the stairs.

The 15 year mandatory for murder is a guide, with judges allowed to exercise professional judgement. In departing downwards from the 15 year guide, Masipa was not doing anything that hasn't been done by other judges.

Based on what has been found by the courts and cannot now be questioned in terms of the circumstances of his case, do you agree with Jeremy that it merits the same sentence as that of the case Jeremy linked to (the details of which I outlined in my post)? If so, why?

Of course, my opinion. Just as you labelling it paltry and debatable was purely yours, of course.

I have no idea what the SCA will decide. Personally I agree with Marius Du Toit who says it should be turned down, but I completely accept that the SCA might not agree with that opinion.

Do you really not see/think that the aggravating factors that resulted in the sentence increase for the case you linked to are significantly different in their depth and severity?

Oh.....kay.....

We should look for this then?

See normally if you make a statement about something its sort of protocol that you provide the backup and information.

I could say this morning "the moon landings were faked" as a fact - when asked for back up or evidence I tell folk to go and look?

Nah not with you on that one Eggy - I'm not doubting your word, but if its common, as you say, it would be lovely to have links to similar cases.

cheers

Subtracting 9 years off a mandatory 15 year sentence? Really? And then awarding costs against the state after welcoming any appeal. I think that shows a distinct lack of professionalism from Masipa at having her judgement (or lack of) called into question.

Her six year sentence was just two fingers shoved up towards the NPA and SCA for calling out her previous sentence of a measly five years / 10 to 12 months.

Would you have preferred judge Greenland's suggestion of 15 years house arrest?

Whilst the media frenzy around the resentence has been whipped up around us, there is a noticeable lack of legal experts actually explaining how her verdict is 'shockingly inappropriate '. Perhaps because it isn't. The case that Jeremy linked to doesn't do anything to suggest otherwise.

Do you think both the offender in Jeremy's appeal-link and Pistorius deserve the same sentence then?

Yes I do - 'unlikely to re-offend' shouldn't be a mitigating factor when it comes to a murder conviction.

How do the two cases merit the same sentence?!

One is a second time offender, on parole, breaking curfew conditions, breaking gun possession conditions, leaving a street to go home and fetch a gun, deliberately shooting someone more than once who was incapacitated on the ground in plain sight. This is a person granted parole after ten years of an earlier 14 year sentence for armed robbery

The other is a first time offender, significantly disabled, who was legally entitled to own a gun for home defence, shooting through a door in his own home in the early hours, at an unsighted person he believed to be an intruder. This is someone who has since been considered a good candidate for rehabilitation. And who was granted correctional supervision after serving one year of a 5 year sentence (and who appears to have stuck to his parole/bail conditions until resentencing last month)

Spot the massive difference(s)...

Filly I was being being kind to eggy

He ‘disappeared’ for ages because he couldn’t find any evidence to back up his assertions. Pistoriana behave like this

I did find something in relation to sentencing, so he came bouncing back.

Bit unkind to expect him to actually find something himself to back up his own words surely

Curley as usual you are going completely off track to defend your beloved Pistorius!!

Nobody is saying anything about comparing cases. Of course they are different!!.

My original post was merely to demonstrate how the SCA view the balance between mitigating and aggravating factors and the leniency of sentencing.

Based on the facts to hand purely in the Pistorius case then it is clear from the case law and guidance quoted that Pistorius is on track for 15 years

Now I suggest we wait until the SCA comes to a similar conclusion and then you can go and have a good cry all to yourself.

Sigh - look, CW I've even bolded it for you. Do you want me to bold it for you FOUR times?

Unlikely to re-offend ............ probably!

However before he murdered Reeva...........it was a situation just waiting to happen, with Oscars well known temper and his shooting off his gun on other occasions with impunity - and as he had not been slapped on the wrist for it before, it was as natural for him to lift it as you and I to lift a mobile phone.

Of course he wont re-offend, he at last has been called to account this time, unlike before, where like a little spoilt toddler having a paddy he shot out of car roofs and in crowded nightclubs, where he could have killed someone.

Unfortunately even now he managed to get the waters muddied so that he was given an inappropriate sentence for shooting someone four times, and changing the version (as noted by SCA).

The fact that he wont re-offend possibly should be considered in not adding to the mandatory minimum sentence, it certainly shouldn't mean a whack of time taken off.

Totally agree with Jeremy's post above, that's my feeling also.

Curley have you ever thought of going into PR - you would be absolutely brilliant at it.

I wouldn't be so sure. He is still in denial, still full of anger and resentment and entitlement. But he is widely reviled, and I could easily see him reacting violently to provocation.

You give us an interesting link to a sentence appeal. I engage with the content of it (why else give us a link?), then because the direction is not quite where you want it to be, you accuse me of going off track.

No I'm not. Thanks to your link, you have not only given another example of a high Court judge not giving the minimum for DE, but have shown that the SCA only upped the sentence to the 'mandatory 15 yr mimimum' for that offender. You know the one: the already convicted armed robber, violating his parole conditions, not respecting curfews, illegally possessing (and using) a firearm, deliberately shooting someone -who it was clear posed no threat - multiple times, in plain sight, in a street.

Based on the court findings in the Pistorius case, (you know the one: significantly disabled, vulnerable man, no previous convictions, in legal possession of a gun for home defense, mistakenly believes his girlfriend is an intruder, gets frightened, etc etc.....), the idea that the two crimes merit the same sentence is unworkable. Your example perfectly illustrated the SCA balance between mitigating and aggravating factors: in your appeal case the aggravating factors far outweighed any mitigating ones. In the Pistorius case, they don't.

Now I suggest we wait until we hear more from the SCA, and in the meantime you could go sharpen up your pitchfork.

Exactly what I was thinking Frilly, you just have to read the headline below to see this journalist has got op spot on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-f...eiviks-living/

Excellent and perceptive article by a rational person who doesn’t see Pistorius through rose coloured glasses or find the need to make continual circular excuses for the odious convicted murderer.

Perhaps it is time that all Pistorian apologists where consigned to the ‘repulsive breed box’ and the lid firmly nailed down!!

What the hell is it with these Pistorians?

Up pops Ellen B again with another 8000 words only a week after her previous 8000 words!!!

All credibility is destroyed when she quotes from a certain Roger Dixon who is apparently a forensic expert who has ‘followed the case closely’

Even worse this woman disagrees with Barry Steenkamp on how much pain Reeva must have felt

In other words she is saying ‘I can’t deny our hero Oscar shot your daughter but come on Barry you are exaggerating, it was over in seconds, so he’s not so bad after all’

There really is no limit to these loathsome and detestable people

https://www.the-newshub.com/general/...a-simply-human

Respectfully snipped.

He may well be significantly disabled, but vulnerable not so much - he didn't want to run with the disabled runners at the Olympics - he felt sufficiently secure in his apartment on tiled floors to move around on his stumps. When he was giving his first statement (Im reading the mumsnet thread which starts from 13th February - hugely interesting) - he states that he "rushed" on his stumps, a far cry from the pathetic pity party he gave when pleading with Mrs Overall in court a few months ago.

The legal firearm was loaded with ammunition that would bring down Moby Dick, and literally blew a human being to pieces.

He mistakenly believed his girlfriend was an intruder? After co-incidentally getting up to go to the balcony to move fans at the EXACT second she decided she needed a jimmy riddle? Oh and just to compound that he threw his jeans conveniently over the LED light to make sure it was dark enough.

AND managed to creep round the bed and get his gun whilst carefully ensuring he didn't look at it in case he saw she wasn't in it. All the while being in abject terror of the Intruder of the Bog. He didn't think for ONE second to give that bed a little shake and whisper "Reeva theres a noise in the bathroom"......

That in itself is a tad strange before we even start on all of the other stuff.

No pitchforks being waved here, just a wish to see a murderer doing a reasonable amount of time for murdering someone Curley. Now of course the next step is that you will say the SCA didn't find that..........etc etc etc - and I would add that in my opinion I really wish there bad been a retrial - this has been a fiasco of gargantuan proportions, and as time goes on only gets worse.