Summary
-
Oscar Pistorius has been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp in 2013.
- Judge Thokozile Masipa said there were “substantial and compelling circumstances” that meant he should not serve the 15-year minimum sentence for murder.
- Masipa said the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intentionally killed Steenkamp was something the court had a duty to correct “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”:
Our courts are courts of law, not courts of public opinion.
- In an hour-long judgment, she said:
The life of the accused will never be the same … He is a fallen hero, who has lost his career, and been ruined financially. He cannot be at peace.
- But she rejected the defence argument that Pistorius ought to be hospitalised or serve a non-custodial punishment, saying the sentence ought to be
unpleasant, uncomfortable and painful.
- Masipa said the mitigating factors – that he was vulnerable on his stumps, believed there was an intruder, tried to save Steenkamp’s life and was, in the judge’s view, genuinely remorseful – “outweighed” the aggravating factors, which she listed as using a lethal weapon, with high-grade ammunition, firing four times with no warning shot, and “knowing full well” there was someone inside the toilet cubicle.
- The murder of Steenkamp was not, she said, a case of gender violence:
There is no indication at all that the deceased was in an abusive relationship.
- The judge said she had also taken into account the effect on Steenkamp’s family:
The pain runs deep and … the impact of the accused’s conduct on the family of the deceased has been devastating.
- The defence team said it would not appeal against the sentence. The state has not yet said whether it intends to appeal on the grounds the sentence was too lenient (Pistorius’ sentence for his original conviction for culpable homicide was five years). The state has 14 days to decide.
Anneliese Burgess, a spokesperson for the Pistorius family, said the trial had been a “long, drawn-out process”:
To a certain extent there is relief that this is the last chapter, that they won’t be coming back.
However, campaigners for women’s rights in South Africa expressed disappointment with the sentence. Jacqui Mofokeng of the African National Congress women’s league, who has attended much of the trial and was in court today, said:
The judgment is an insult to women. It sends the wrong message.
A convoy of police vehicles is now leaving the court house with sirens blaring – including a van presumably carrying Oscar Pistorius to prison, though he was not visible.
The instructing attorney for the defence, Andrew Fawcett, has told reporters that the Pistorius team does not intend to appeal the sentence and that they respect Masipa’s decision.
Pistorius will serve the sentence handed down by the court, he says, adding that he will have to serve “between half and two-thirds of the sentence” before he can apply for parole.
But he adds that the defence team will of course “react” if the state decides to appeal the sentence.
Updated
The Guardian’s Africa correspondent writes from Pretoria of the moment those in court heard the six-year sentence handed down to Pistorius:
The 29-year-old former athlete showed little emotion, but looked relieved. His family made no immediate statement.
The sentence was much lower than many had expected. Public prosectors had demanded the mandatory minimum for murder of 15 years. An appeal from Pistorius is considered unlikely, though public prosecutors may decide to challenge the sentence.
However, supporters of the Steenkamps said:
The law has run its course.
Doup De Bruyn, a lawyer who has represented the family, said:
There is nothing [the family] can do about the sentence. Nothing will bring Reeva back. The best thing to do is to maintain a dignified silence.
Pistorius arrived for court today looking anxious but healthier than during the hearings last month. He hugged members of his legal team and his family. The relatives of the former athlete and those of his victim filled a bench along the front of the courtroom.
In an hour-long judgment, Judge Masipa said evidence she had heard convinced her Pistorius was “not a violent person”, was unlikely to reoffend and had showed remorse. The judge said she had to balance the interests of society, the accused and relatives of the victim.
Pistorius, she said, was “a fallen hero, who has lost his career, and been ruined financially. He cannot be at peace.”
She also stressed that a court should not be swayed by public opinion but that punishment must also reflect the seriousness of the offence. It should be “unpleasant, uncomfortable and painful”.
Updated
This is the scene outside the North Gauteng high court – at some point Oscar Pistorius will be taken from here to prison.
#OscarPistorius Streets outside High Court in Pretoria in anticipation of OP's departure. Mix of media and public pic.twitter.com/IrOGN5JNSH
— Reinart Toerien (@ray_toerien) July 6, 2016
Carl Pistorius, the brother of Oscar Pistorius, has just tweeted this response to the verdict:
The record has been set straight and justice done. The truth will always prevail. #justice
— Carl Pistorius (@carlpistorius) July 6, 2016
The Pistorius family is expected to make a statement shortly. It is likely to come via Arnold Pistorius, Oscar Pistorius’ uncle, who tends to speak for the family.
Oscar Pistorius hugged his sister Aimee, pictured below, and his brother Carl (in the blue jacket) before he was taken down to the cells after hearing his sentence.
He is expected to be moved directly to prison today.
In delivering her decision, Masipa said she had considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, and concluded that the latter outweighed the former.
She listed mitigating factors as:
- Pistorius was vulnerable on his stumps without his protheses.
- He believed the person in the bathroom was an intruder.
- He “immediately took steps to try to save the deceased’s life”.
- The judge believed he was genuinely remorseful.
She said the aggravating factors were:
- Pistorius used a lethal weapon, with high-grade ammunition.
- He fired four times, “knowing full well” there was someone in the bathroom.
- He did not take the precaution of firing a warning shot.
Reporters in the courtroom say the defence team will not appeal against the sentence (it’s not clear on what grounds it might have been able to do so).
And on that note, some views from South African media:
Remember - he has been sentenced to six years but OP unlikely to serve that full duration. Eligible for parole earlier, good behaviour etc.
— Mandy Wiener (@MandyWiener) July 6, 2016
#Pistorius Legal experts say OP can be paroled for good behaviour after serving a third of the sentence - that is two years
— Debora Patta (@Debora_Patta) July 6, 2016
It is notable that Pistorius’ original sentence, when he was initially found guilty of culpable homicide (the equivalent of manslaughter), was five years.
He served 10 months of that in prison before being eligible for parole under house arrest.
The increase in sentence – bearing in mind the judge spelt out how much more serious a crime murder is – was just one year.
It is not clear yet how much of the six-year sentence he will be compelled to serve in prison before he will once again be eligible for parole.
Masipa left the courtroom swiftly after delivering the sentence but said she would be available to hear an appeal today if that was required.
Previous reports have said that an appeal would not be available to Pistorius, but that it might be possible for the state to argue against a sentence if it thought it was too lenient.
Pistorius has been taken down to the cells.
The courtroom is very quiet. Reporters in the room say there has been little visible reaction from the Steenkamp family, who are there.
But Pistorius’ sister Aimee has left the court in tears.
Judge Masipa has sentenced Oscar Pistorius to six years’ imprisonment for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp.
She said there were “substantial and compelling reasons” to deviate from the 15-year minimum sentence for murder, citing as one factor the continuing misperception that Pistorius had intended to kill his girlfriend.
Six years imprisonment
The judge asks Pistorius to stand.
She imposes a sentence of six years.
She says it was a “noble gesture” of Pistorius to offer to do community service.
But punishment is not what you choose to do. It ought to be painful.
But she says a long-term imprisonment will not serve justice.
Masipa moves on to her conclusion.
No sentence will please everyone, she says. Nothing will bring back the deceased.
The life of the accused will never be the same. He is a fallen hero … He cannot be at peace.
She says she was not surprised to hear him described as a broken man.
Masipa says she is not convinced by the evidence given by Scholtz that Pistorius ought to be hospitalised.
Pistorius has already spent time in prison, Masipa says.
The court heard evidence that he struggled as an inmate. But she does not accept that he was “vilified” or treated badly by prison officials.
But on reports that he was aggressive to prison staff, Masipa says:
[Being] quick-tempered does not necessarily mean he is a violent person.
Updated
The rehabilitation programmes may not be sufficient now that Pistorius’ conviction has been upgraded to murder, the judge says.
(He undertook them when serving his sentence for culpable homicide.)
But she says it indicates that he is a “good candidate for rehabilitation”.
The defence wants a non-custodial sentence, Masipa says. They cited workshops on anger management as proof he had been rehabilitated.
But deterrence and retribution are just as important, she says.
Masipa accepts the case put forward by the defence that there are “two Oscars” – the successful athlete and the vulnerable disabled man.
(See here for more on the “two Oscars” evidence.)
But this is not the only factor for her to consider, she goes on.
Updated
Masipa is speaking at length about what she calls the “misperception” that Pistorius intended to kill Steenkamp and the duty of the court to correct that view.
Public opinion may be loud and persistent but it can play no role in the decision of this court.
#OscarPistorius listening on as sentence is handed down. pic.twitter.com/nZp4DnCrmL
— POWER987 News (@POWER987News) July 6, 2016
Masipa: Our courts are courts of law, not courts of public opinion.
She says “public indignation” must be based on facts.
Wrong perceptions exist in this case, she says, and it is the duty of the court to correct it “to prevent unjustified outrage from the public”.
Masipa outlines what she finds are the “substantial and compelling circumstances” for reducing the 15-year minimum sentence.
(She has not yet said what the sentence will be.)
She says Pistorius was on his stumps and was vulnerable.
She accepts that the pain of the Steenkamp family is “real and it is tangible”.
But she says the “misperception” persists that Pistorius intended to kill Reeva Steenkamp and that “cannot be ignored”.
Judge says she will not impose 15-year minimum sentence
Masipa says mitigating factors outweigh the aggravating ones, and there are compelling reasons to deviate from the 15-year minimum.
Judge: Pistorius 'genuinely remorseful'
The state said Pistorius showed no remorse, Masipa notes.
I disagree.
She says he apologised in court, having “previously and unsuccessfully” trying to contact the Steenkamp family privately, more than once.
She interprets this as undermining any notion that he apologised as a “ploy”.
She says he would only persist in his efforts to apologise to the family because “he was genuinely remorseful”.
The mitigating factors
Turning to mitigating factors, Masipa says Pistorius was vulnerable without his protheses. He believed the person in the bathroom was an intruder. He “immediately took steps to try to save the deceased’s life”.
The aggravating factors
Masipa says the more uneasy a court feels about a sentence, the more likely it is that an injustice can be perpetrated.
She now turns to the aggravating factors in this case. Pistorius used a lethal weapon, with high-grade ammunition, and fired four times, “knowing full well” there was someone in the bathroom.
He did not take the precaution of firing a warning shot.
She says it is incumbent on the court to consider whether any sentence is proportionate to the offence, taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the culpability of the offender.
To deviate from the minimum sentence, she says, it must take into account the particular circumstances of the case; she mentions those “substantial and compelling circumstances” again.
Masipa has not yet given an indication of whether she thinks there are “substantial and compelling circumstances” in this case.
#OscarPistorius It sounds like Judge is starting from base minimum of fifteen years and may work her way down from there
— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) July 6, 2016
Masipa says the court is obliged to impose the minimum sentence of 15 years unless there are “substantial and compelling” reasons to reduce it.
She says it is up to the court to decide what constitutes “substantial and compelling” circumstances.
She says Reeva Steenkamp’s family continues to suffer as a result of her death.
It is not surprising that the family is still grieving, Masipa adds. They had “a very close bond … they feel the loss deeply”:
The pain runs deep and … the impact of the accused’s conduct on the family of the deceased has been devastating.
Masipa says she must take this into account when deciding the sentence.
Updated
Society’s expectations for punishment “cannot be legitimate if they are based on wrong perceptions”, Masipa tells the court.
The interests of society, Masipa says, demand that crimes of murder be punished severely. But the demands must be legitimate, she goes on.
She points out that the defence argued that the perception persists that Pistorius deliberately killed Steenkamp.
This perception was proven, she says, by Barry Steenkamp in his own evidence (Gerrie Nel, the prosecutor, was forced to intervene when Steenkamp appeared to say he did believe the shooting was intentional).
Masipa says this is not a case of gender violence:
There is no indication at all that the deceased was in an abusive relationship.
June and Barry Steenkamp are once again hearing in court the details of their daughter’s death.
Masipa recounts evidence that witnesses on the scene in the aftermath of the shooting believed Pistorius’ distress to be genuine.
Masipa moves on to the circumstances of the murder. She says it is important to consider these in every case.
Murder is always a very serious crime.
That the accused thought it was an intruder does not make it any less serious.
Scholtz “did not fare well under cross-examination”, Masipa says.
He could not back up some of the claims made, about the prison experience or claims that medication was withheld from Pistorius in prison.
But she says she did find Scholtz a truthful witness.
The judge says Scholtz’s report argued that Pistorius had suffered from media attention and negative experiences in prison, such as overhearing the rape of an inmate and witnessing his subsequent hanging.
But she says, these were “not supported by anything concrete”. Evidence from a prison employee suggested it was not possible for him to have witnessed this, Masipa says.
Masipa recites evidence given during the sentencing hearing that Pistorius has sold all his firearms and does not want to use a gun ever again.
Pistorius looks solemn as Masipa outlines his mother’s anxiety around crime, and her death when he was a teenager.
Scholtz’s report, she reads, says Pistorius’ childhood experiences made “him aware of his own and his family’s vulnerability to crime”.
The judge now turns to what she calls his “personal circumstances”. It’s essentially a rundown of his family and career history, by now well rehearsed in this courtroom.
She notes that he has no previous convictions.
Masipa skips through the evidence given by the two other defence witnesses, who testified to Pistorius’ charity work and his desire to work in future with children.
Scholtz found that Pistorius displayed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression, and was not well enough to testify in the sentencing proceedings.
(Pistorius did not give evidence in those hearings last month.)
Masipa notes that Scholtz was of the opinion that Pistorius ought to be hospitalised.
Among the factors she needs to consider, Masipa says, she must decide whether there is any cause not to impose the 15-year minimum sentence.
She says she has considered all the evidence but will not set it all out in detail now.
She will talk about the evidence given by defence witness Professor Jonathan Scholtz, a clinical psychologist who reported on Pistorius’ mental state.
Masipa begins by setting out the process so far: the original finding, the appeal and the decision by the supreme court to overturn the first verdict and substitute one of murder.
It is for this court now to impose the appropriate sentence for murder, she says.
Updated
Sentencing begins
Judge Thokozile Masipa is in the courtroom and the hearing is starting.
Pistorius will be sentenced today by the same judge who presided over his original trial, Thokozile Masipa.
Having initially found him guilty of culpable homicide – and clearing him of murder – Masipa sentenced Pistorius in September 2014 to five years in prison. He served 10 months in Kgosi Mampuru prison, before being released (in accordance with parole regulations) under house arrest conditions. He has lived at the home of his aunt and uncle, Lois and Arnold Pistorius, ever since.
Although the minimum sentence for murder is 15 years, Masipa does have discretion to cut this, or to suspend part of the sentence.
She could, for example, deduct all or part of the original sentence served.
The defence also argued that she ought to make allowance for Pistorius’ disability – he had both lower limbs amputated as a child – and his other vulnerabilities, including anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
Oscar Pistorius and his legal team are in the courtroom, along with several members of the Pistorius family.
Barry and June Steenkamp, the parents of Reeva Steenkamp, are also there.
#OscarPistorius hugging family as he waits for proceedings to start.
— Maryke Vermaak (@MarykeVermaak) July 6, 2016
MV pic.twitter.com/1fKOnhb94L
The state case: 15 years must be the minimum
- Gerrie Nel, for the state, said the judge had no choice under the law but to start with a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison.
- It was not plausible to argue that Pistorius was remorseful when he still has “no acceptable explanation” for why he acted as he did, Nel said.
- Nel said that while the defence talked about Pistorius’ suffering, Reeva Steenkamp “disappeared”:
She is just as important as the personal circumstances of the accused … She can never walk in court.
- Nel said the “broken man” in the courtroom was not Pistorius but Barry Steenkamp, Reeva’s father, and that his decision to forgive his daughter’s killer was not a reason for leniency:
Forgiveness has more to do with the person forgiving than with the crime.
The defence case: no more prison time
- In a moment of high drama during the sentencing hearing in June, Oscar Pistorius took off his prostheses and walked across the room, grabbing a desk for support. Defence counsel Barry Roux told the judge:
I don’t want to overplay vulnerability … I don’t want to overplay disability … It doesn’t mean because he’s vulnerable that he can do what he likes. That’s not what we say.
But when we’re entering the field of sentencing, look at that man’s conduct … Please let’s understand … who is this man that you must sentence?
- “There is no purpose served” by sending Pistorius back to prison, Roux argued, and he should instead perform community service:
Punishment is not meant to break the defendant … The accused does not fall into the category of offender who should be removed from society.
- Roux said there were “serious enemies” in the case, including the widely-held perception that Pistorius had intended to kill Steenkamp, and the unwillingness of many people to take into account the circumstances:
It was not the man winning gold medals that must be judged … It was a 1.5-metre person, standing on his stumps, three o’clock in the morning when it was dark.
- The defence cited the case of rugby player Vleis Visagie, who accidentally killed his daughter and was not prosecuted:
How must you feel when you fire those shots that you should not have, and it’s your own girlfriend?
- The facts of the case were not set aside by the supreme court, which upgraded the conviction to murder on a legal point, Roux said. The original five-year sentence relied on those same facts: he was anxious, vulnerable and afraid; he did not intend to kill Steenkamp.
- The decision to broadcast the trial had not benefitted Pistorius, Roux said:
No other accused has ever had to endure this level of publicity, misinformation and character assassination.
Opening summary
Today – more than three years after Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead – Oscar Pistorius will be sentenced for her murder.
The former athlete could face up to 15 years in prison, after his original conviction for culpable homicide – and subsequent five-year sentence – was overturned on appeal and replaced with a finding that he was guilty of murder.
In a three-day sentencing hearing last month, Judge Thokozile Masipa was told by the defence that “there is no purpose served” by sending Pistorius back to prison. (He previously served 10 months of his original sentence and has lived since September 2015 under house arrest conditions at his uncle’s home in Pretoria.)
But chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel argued that the judge must start at the minimum sentence of 15 years.
The North Gauteng high court in Pretoria is due to convene shortly. We will have all the developments here.
Comments will not be switched on for the live blog but do feel free to contact me via Twitter @Claire_Phipps with comments and questions.
