This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/jun/15/oscar-pistorius-sentencing-live-day-three-reeva-steenkamp

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 9 Version 10
'No purpose served' in jailing Oscar Pistorius, says defence lawyer – live 'No purpose served' in jailing Oscar Pistorius, says defence lawyer – live
(35 minutes later)
2.09pm BST
14:09
Nel says the state argues for long-term imprisonment and 15 years should be the minimum.
#OscarPistorious -- Nel: We argue for a long term in prison. Minimum of 15 years. I do not think the life of Reeva has a minimum.
2.01pm BST
14:01
Nel says the finding that Pistorius did not specifically intend to kill Steenkamp is not a mitigating factor. He says if an offender sets off a bomb that kills 50 people, it does not matter that he does not know the identities of those 50 people.
He is guilty of the murder of Reeva. He killed her.
Believing he was shooting at an intruder is not a mitigating factor, Nel insists:
The identity of the victim is irrelevant to his guilt and irrelevant to sentence.
1.52pm BST
13:52
Nel: 'Reeva can never walk in court'
It is fair for the court to take the accused’s personal circumstances into account, Nel says. But in this case, this “recedes into the background” compared with the seriousness of the offence.
Reeva Steenkamp “disappeared” in this trial, he says. The court should take into account “who she was … what dreams she had”.
She is just as important as the personal circumstances of the accused … She can never walk in court.
It doesn’t matter if Pistorius thought he was firing at an intruder, Nel goes on:
Is an intruder’s life not important? Did he think of that life?
Pistorius’ actions were gratuitous, Nel tells the judge:
I cannot think of a more excessive use of a firearm … He fired four shots that tore up the body of the deceased.
1.37pm BST
13:37
Nel turns to the issue of remorse. Pistorius has not “taken the court fully into … his confidence” and so genuine remorse can’t be established, he says. We still don’t know the real reason why he fired those shots.
What motivated him? We don’t know.
Nel says Pistorius’ acceptance of the verdict against him is because “he had to – there was no other way out”. He says Pistorius has shown regret but not remorse.
I caused her death is not the same as I murdered her.
Without that, there can be no remorse.
The prospects of rehabilitation are remote for as long as Pistorius fails to acknowledge the crime of which he has been convicted.
What the court has heard is that the accused elected to give an interview to the TV but not take this court into his confidence. That’s disrespectful to the court, it’s disrespectful to the victims of this crime, it’s disrespectful to the deceased.
1.29pm BST1.29pm BST
13:2913:29
Nel says he has rarely heard such devastation from a family as that relayed by Barry Steenkamp and Kim Martin in their testimony. He says the judge has a duty to ensure:Nel says he has rarely heard such devastation from a family as that relayed by Barry Steenkamp and Kim Martin in their testimony. He says the judge has a duty to ensure:
The court will never be lenient on any crime that caused that grief.The court will never be lenient on any crime that caused that grief.
UpdatedUpdated
at 1.31pm BSTat 1.31pm BST
1.24pm BST1.24pm BST
13:2413:24
The victims here are the mother, father and family of Reeva Steenkamp, Nel goes on. They have rights that must be considered.The victims here are the mother, father and family of Reeva Steenkamp, Nel goes on. They have rights that must be considered.
The deceased has done nothing wrong … She will never walk again … The accused murdered her.The deceased has done nothing wrong … She will never walk again … The accused murdered her.
He reminds the judge that Barry Steenkamp said he would never get over his daughter’s death.He reminds the judge that Barry Steenkamp said he would never get over his daughter’s death.
The victims’ voices must be heard, he says, but this is not decisive: the court must still decide, even if the victim has forgiven. Forgiveness does not mean the impact is less severe.The victims’ voices must be heard, he says, but this is not decisive: the court must still decide, even if the victim has forgiven. Forgiveness does not mean the impact is less severe.
Justice must still be properly administered … despite an admission of forgiveness.Justice must still be properly administered … despite an admission of forgiveness.
Forgiveness has more to do with the person forgiving than with the crime.Forgiveness has more to do with the person forgiving than with the crime.
1.17pm BST1.17pm BST
13:1713:17
In a crime as serious as murder, retribution and deterrence should be at the fore, with rehabilitation less important, Nel says.In a crime as serious as murder, retribution and deterrence should be at the fore, with rehabilitation less important, Nel says.
We’re dealing with a matter that is severe … we argue that the rehabilitation of the offender will play a relatively smaller role.We’re dealing with a matter that is severe … we argue that the rehabilitation of the offender will play a relatively smaller role.
Nel says the defence witness Dr Jonathan Scholtz “ignored the violent aspects of the accused” – that is, the report by the prison psychologist about incidents of aggression while he was serving his sentence.Nel says the defence witness Dr Jonathan Scholtz “ignored the violent aspects of the accused” – that is, the report by the prison psychologist about incidents of aggression while he was serving his sentence.
Nel says Scholtz is clearly biased.Nel says Scholtz is clearly biased.
He says it is the duty of the court to lead public opinion, not to follow it. But it must reflect the “indignation and outrage” of the public and deter others:He says it is the duty of the court to lead public opinion, not to follow it. But it must reflect the “indignation and outrage” of the public and deter others:
A sentence by this court should deter people from acting in this way.A sentence by this court should deter people from acting in this way.
UpdatedUpdated
at 1.20pm BSTat 1.20pm BST
1.12pm BST1.12pm BST
13:1213:12
Nel says it would not be appropriate to subtract time already served from any new sentence “for mercy’s sake”.Nel says it would not be appropriate to subtract time already served from any new sentence “for mercy’s sake”.
Pity will play no role in a sentence.Pity will play no role in a sentence.
The court can’t be seen to condone serious crime, he adds.The court can’t be seen to condone serious crime, he adds.
It’s not a clean slate. The minimum sentencing is applicable.It’s not a clean slate. The minimum sentencing is applicable.
1.07pm BST1.07pm BST
13:0713:07
Hearing resumesHearing resumes
Gerrie Nel continues with his argument for the state in aggravation of sentence.Gerrie Nel continues with his argument for the state in aggravation of sentence.
He cites case law to say that “wholly suspending” a prison sentence, even in compelling circumstances, is not permitted.He cites case law to say that “wholly suspending” a prison sentence, even in compelling circumstances, is not permitted.
The starting point is 15 years, he says.The starting point is 15 years, he says.
12.59pm BST12.59pm BST
12:5912:59
Pistorius is back in court in his suit. Nel is set to conclude his closing argument, with Judge Masipa having indicated the court will sit today for as long as is needed to finish the sentencing hearing.Pistorius is back in court in his suit. Nel is set to conclude his closing argument, with Judge Masipa having indicated the court will sit today for as long as is needed to finish the sentencing hearing.
She will then retire to consider what sentence to impose. We don’t yet know when she will come back with that – Friday would probably be the earliest opportunity.She will then retire to consider what sentence to impose. We don’t yet know when she will come back with that – Friday would probably be the earliest opportunity.
12.26pm BST12.26pm BST
12:2612:26
12.14pm BST12.14pm BST
12:1412:14
The court has now adjourned for the lunch break.The court has now adjourned for the lunch break.
11.55am BST11.55am BST
11:5511:55
Pistorius should serve at least 15 years in prison – statePistorius should serve at least 15 years in prison – state
Nel says the court may not impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed for murder, which is 15 years’ imprisonment.Nel says the court may not impose a sentence less than the minimum prescribed for murder, which is 15 years’ imprisonment.
The court does not start with a clean slate, he says.The court does not start with a clean slate, he says.
There must be “truly convincing reasons for a different response”, he adds, reading from the regulations.There must be “truly convincing reasons for a different response”, he adds, reading from the regulations.
Undue sympathy is not an aspect that should be taken into considerationUndue sympathy is not an aspect that should be taken into consideration
Correctional supervision – essentially house arrest, which is what Pistorius has been under since leaving prison last October – “is not even close” to the punishment required here, Nel tells the judge.Correctional supervision – essentially house arrest, which is what Pistorius has been under since leaving prison last October – “is not even close” to the punishment required here, Nel tells the judge.
11.48am BST11.48am BST
11:4811:48
Nel takes on Roux’s argument that the original culpable homicide verdict was “on the border” of dolus eventualis and the murder verdict took it over; the defence implied this meant a large uplift in sentence wasn’t necessary.Nel takes on Roux’s argument that the original culpable homicide verdict was “on the border” of dolus eventualis and the murder verdict took it over; the defence implied this meant a large uplift in sentence wasn’t necessary.
Not so, says Nel, who argues that Pistorius’ culpability instead borders on dolus directus – that is, the intention to kill. He knew the toilet cubicle was small with no escape for the person inside. He fired not one but four shots. These are all aggravating circumstances.Not so, says Nel, who argues that Pistorius’ culpability instead borders on dolus directus – that is, the intention to kill. He knew the toilet cubicle was small with no escape for the person inside. He fired not one but four shots. These are all aggravating circumstances.
Even if he thought it was an intruder, he armed himself with a firearm loaded with black talon ammunition. We know what those bullets do to a body, Nel adds. He says Pistorius has never given an “acceptable explanation” of why he fired four times.Even if he thought it was an intruder, he armed himself with a firearm loaded with black talon ammunition. We know what those bullets do to a body, Nel adds. He says Pistorius has never given an “acceptable explanation” of why he fired four times.
Maybe he will tell ITV, Nel says. But he has not done so here in court.Maybe he will tell ITV, Nel says. But he has not done so here in court.
He reminds Masipa that Pistorius was a poor witness. Without a credible reason why he fired, Nel says, it isn’t plausible to say he is remorseful:He reminds Masipa that Pistorius was a poor witness. Without a credible reason why he fired, Nel says, it isn’t plausible to say he is remorseful:
The only plausible explanation is that the accused armed himself with the intention to shoot.The only plausible explanation is that the accused armed himself with the intention to shoot.