• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • General Discussion Forums
  • General Discussion
Pistorius..prosecution heads for supreme court
<<
<
13 of 63
>>
>
Jeremy99
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by musing:
“Difficult to know to what degree Masipa felt slighted by the SCA judgement. She did seem terse in her dealings with Nel at sentencing and sentencing appeal.

It seems Masipa had a problem fully accepting the crime is murder and not CH, and this is reflected in her sentencing. This view is perpetuated by others who continue to claim this crime is some sort of murder-lite or a toss-up with CH. The SCA judgement makes it patently clear that the killing was wholly the result of wilfulness, neither justified nor involuntary, and that it cannot be characterised as negligence.”


Judging by the looks she was giving him during the leave to appeal hearing such as here Nel was in grave danger of being turned to stone!!
musing
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Judging by the looks she was giving him during the leave to appeal hearing such as here Nel was in grave danger of being turned to stone!!”

I understand it's protocol in SA to return the case to the original trial court for sentencing. One can sort of understand the rationale but it has potential flaws. Would the same happen in the UK or would the appeal court give the new sentence if it overturned a verdict?
Jeremy99
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by musing:
“I understand it's protocol in SA to return the case to the original trial court for sentencing. One can sort of understand the rationale but it has potential flaws. Would the same happen in the UK or would the appeal court give the new sentence if it overturned a verdict?”

An appeal court can resentence if the appeal is against a sentence. Masipa granted leave to appeal conviction but dismissed the application to challenge the 5 year sentence. Therefore as there was no appeal against the sentence the appeal court had no option than to send it back to Masipa for resentencing based on the new conviction

The rest is history as they say
dee123
22-09-2016
Seriously? This is still going?

Turn around
Look at what you see
In her face
The mirror of your dreams...
musing
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by dee123:
“Seriously? This is still going?

snipped”

Yes, the legal process is still going on.
Hopefully it will be sorted soon!
Wilkco
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Unfortunately that’s the procedure.

In all honesty I would imagine the SCA had some confidence that after being admonished for her errors Masipa would act appropriately with sentencing.

I would imagine they had not foreseen her embittered attitude which resulted in her bringing the SA judicial system into disrepute for the second time”

Jeremy if leave to appeal the sentence is granted will Oscar Pistorius attend the hearing and have a second chance to testify?
Jeremy99
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Wilkco:
“Jeremy if leave to appeal the sentence is granted will Oscar Pistorius attend the hearing and have a second chance to testify?”

Short answer is No

The only persons to appear at a supreme court are the representatives of the prosecution and defence who present oral argument based on their previously submitted Heads of Argument.

Justices of a supreme court tend to be much more assertive in their examinations as Roux found out last time.

Pity really, I would have liked to have seen Pistorius being examined by Justice Leach
Wilkco
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Short answer is No

The only persons to appear at a supreme court are the representatives of the prosecution and defence who present oral argument based on their previously submitted Heads of Argument.

Justices of a supreme court tend to be much more assertive in their examinations as Roux found out last time.

Pity really, I would have liked to have seen Pistorius being examined by Justice Leach ”

That's what I was hoping to see.
DeepC
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Short answer is No

The only persons to appear at a supreme court are the representatives of the prosecution and defence who present oral argument based on their previously submitted Heads of Argument.

Justices of a supreme court tend to be much more assertive in their examinations as Roux found out last time.

Pity really, I would have liked to have seen Pistorius being examined by Justice Leach ”

Now, that would be a treat.
DS Forum Support
22-09-2016
Once again we have had to remove a number of posts for being unconstructive. It seems these threads continuously go in circles and never seem to change. If we have to do this again we will be permanently banning the users responsible and closing the thread. Please remain civil and stay on topic.
Frillynix
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“Short answer is No

The only persons to appear at a supreme court are the representatives of the prosecution and defence who present oral argument based on their previously submitted Heads of Argument.

Justices of a supreme court tend to be much more assertive in their examinations as Roux found out last time.

Pity really, I would have liked to have seen Pistorius being examined by Justice Leach ”

He would be "farting for his life" once again (only this time he might follow through) 😨😨😨😨
musing
22-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“An appeal court can resentence if the appeal is against a sentence. Masipa granted leave to appeal conviction but dismissed the application to challenge the 5 year sentence. Therefore as there was no appeal against the sentence the appeal court had no option than to send it back to Masipa for resentencing based on the new conviction

The rest is history as they say”

BIB - That seems odd. As the SCA altered the verdict why would an appeal (or lack of) against a sentence for CH matter?

Does anyone know how it would work in the UK? If an appeal court alters a verdict do they also deal with re-sentencing?
Heatherbell
23-09-2016
Originally Posted by musing:
“Difficult to know to what degree Masipa felt slighted by the SCA judgement. She did seem terse in her dealings with Nel at sentencing and sentencing appeal.

It seems Masipa had a problem fully accepting the crime is murder and not CH, and this is reflected in her sentencing. This view is perpetuated by others who continue to claim this crime is some sort of murder-lite or a toss-up with CH. The SCA judgement makes it patently clear that the killing was wholly the result of wilfulness, neither justified nor involuntary, and that it cannot be characterised as negligence.”

She was raging and in my opinion it came across in a petulant attitude directed at Nell etc . She was not happy and made sure it showed by glowering and flouncing like a rejected teenage lassie .
The decent thing to do would be to recluse herself and allow another judge to take over , but she was too stubborn and too full of self importance to consider that option .Stepping down on health grounds would have been perfectly acceptable in her case, especially considering she kept dozing off during the trial . Most unseemly behaviour for a judge in such a high profile televised trial .
Hopefully this most recent action by the prosecution will finally help restore some sort of faith in SA justice and get true justice for Reeva .
porky42
23-09-2016
Originally Posted by Heatherbell:
“She was raging and in my opinion it came across in a petulant attitude directed at Nell etc . She was not happy and made sure it showed by glowering and flouncing like a rejected teenage lassie .
The decent thing to do would be to recluse herself and allow another judge to take over , but she was too stubborn and too full of self importance to consider that option .Stepping down on health grounds would have been perfectly acceptable in her case, especially considering she kept dozing off during the trial . Most unseemly behaviour for a judge in such a high profile televised trial .
Hopefully this most recent action by the prosecution will finally help restore some sort of faith in SA justice and get true justice for Reeva .”

BIB Really? I watched every moment of the trial and the appeals and didn't see her asleep once.
porky42
23-09-2016
Originally Posted by Wilkco:
“Jeremy if leave to appeal the sentence is granted will Oscar Pistorius attend the hearing and have a second chance to testify?”

OP can attend at the SCA if he wants to but he won't be asked to speak.

He didn't attend last time but having been inside for a while he might feel like a day out I suppose.
dee123
23-09-2016
Originally Posted by musing:
“Yes, the legal process is still going on.
Hopefully it will be sorted soon!”

I thought it was done. Hopefully it is finished soon.
musing
23-09-2016
Originally Posted by dee123:
“I thought it was done. Hopefully it is finished soon.”

The judicial process in SA (at least in this case) does seem painfully slow; what with bail hearing, high court trial, supreme court appeal, more bail hearing, re-sentencing hearing, more appeals .......

It does seem to be on it's last leg now, so to speak.
Jeremy99
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by porky42:
“OP can attend at the SCA if he wants to but he won't be asked to speak.

He didn't attend last time but having been inside for a while he might feel like a day out I suppose.”

I would suggest this not to be the case. Whereas members of the public can attend an appeal court Pistorius is no longer of this ilk. He is a convicted felon with a known violent temperament so whether he wants to attend or not he would be prohibited from leaving prison.

On the other hand he might try for a day out by approaching the Chief Warder with such a suggestion. Perhaps along the lines of….

Hey Chiefy, my appeal is on next week down at Bloemfontein, what say you we organise a prison van with a couple of warders and have ourselves a day out attending the court.

Chance to meet up with some supporters, press some flesh and sign a few autographs that sort of stuff. I’m sure the prison trick cyclists will say it’s good for my morale

We could throw a few tinnies in the trunk to make a real day of it. Perhaps on the way back call at Arnies pad and get him to stoke up the barbie. I could even arrange for some eye candy by inviting Babyshoes along.

What do you mean Chiefy, ‘in your dreams shorty’?

Careful now, I might throw a wobbly, contact my PR and make a few wild accusation and I might even………smash your coffee cup!!!
porky42
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“I would suggest this not to be the case. Whereas members of the public can attend an appeal court Pistorius is no longer of this ilk. He is a convicted felon with a known violent temperament so whether he wants to attend or not he would be prohibited from leaving prison.

On the other hand he might try for a day out by approaching the Chief Warder with such a suggestion. Perhaps along the lines of….

Hey Chiefy, my appeal is on next week down at Bloemfontein, what say you we organise a prison van with a couple of warders and have ourselves a day out attending the court.

Chance to meet up with some supporters, press some flesh and sign a few autographs that sort of stuff. I’m sure the prison trick cyclists will say it’s good for my morale

We could throw a few tinnies in the trunk to make a real day of it. Perhaps on the way back call at Arnies pad and get him to stoke up the barbie. I could even arrange for some eye candy by inviting Babyshoes along.

What do you mean Chiefy, ‘in your dreams shorty’?

Careful now, I might throw a wobbly, contact my PR and make a few wild accusation and I might even………smash your coffee cup!!!”

Really? I'm sure I read it in the Constitution.

He'll be fine in the court as long as no one gives him a fright.
musing
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“
snipped

We could throw a few tinnies in the trunk to make a real day of it. Perhaps on the way back call at Arnies pad and get him to stoke up the barbie. I could even arrange for some eye candy by inviting Babyshoes along.

snipped
”

Haha! An amusing riff.

I should point out you've gone a bit Oz. In SA 'barbie' would be 'braai', and 'tinnie' might be 'dumpie'.

Just because I know how people are sticklers for accuracy on this thread.
Jeremy99
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by porky42:
“BIB Really? I watched every moment of the trial and the appeals and didn't see her asleep once.”

She did look as if she was dozing at times, but on the other hand she was probably deep in thought of how she was going to get Pistorius out of this mess.

Maybe you missed those bits
Jeremy99
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by porky42:
“Really? I'm sure I read it in the Constitution.

He'll be fine in the court as long as no one gives him a fright.”

So you think the Constitution gives the right for a convicted murderer to be let out of prison to attend an appeal where he is not legally required.

Of course I do not doubt that you read as such but for my own edification I wonder if you could point me to where it says that in the Constitution
LaVieEnRose
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by porky42:
“He'll be fine in the court as long as no one gives him a fright.”

They surely wouldn't let him have a gun in there, would they?
Jeremy99
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by LaVieEnRose:
“They surely wouldn't let him have a gun in there, would they? ”

If he did I would imagine Justice Leach would be in the firing line!!
porky42
24-09-2016
Originally Posted by Jeremy99:
“So you think the Constitution gives the right for a convicted murderer to be let out of prison to attend an appeal where he is not legally required.

Of course I do not doubt that you read as such but for my own edification I wonder if you could point me to where it says that in the Constitution”

I thought that an accused was able to be in court when their liberty may be affected. Sorry can't remember where I read it but I guess even murderers could be safely restrained in handcuffs and leg restraints so they can't run off or murder anyone else.
<<
<
13 of 63
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map