Day three – what we learned
Sentencing will take place on 6 July
- Judge Thokozile Masipa said the court would reconvene on Wednesday 6 July for her to hand down sentence.
- Masipa also allowed an application by chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel, backed by the Steenkamp family, to publish photos of Reeva Steenkamp’s injuries.
Nel: Isn’t it time we now finally let the world see what this accused did with four black talon rounds through a door?
Defence: ‘no purpose served’ in sending Pistorius to prison
- In a moment of high drama, and with many people in court in tears, 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.
State: ‘15 years in prison is 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.
- Nel said it was “disrespectful to the court, to the victims of this crime, to the deceased” that Pistorius had chosen to give an interview to ITV, to be broadcast next week.
The final witness
- First the court heard from Kim Martin, cousin of Reeva Steenkamp. She said her family would not get over the killing, and said Pistorius’ decision to give an interview to Britain’s ITV channel was “hurtful”:
People say we got the truth, but we didn’t. Oscar’s version changed so many times …
He never apologised for shooting Reeva. I don’t feel the truth came out.
The live blog will return on 6 July for sentencing. Thank you for reading.
Sentencing to take place on 6 July
Masipa says he will hand down her sentence on Thursday 7 July. Roux says he will not be available on that date. It moves to Wednesday 6 July.
Pistorius remains on bail until then.
Steenkamp photos to be published
Masipa says she will deal first with the application to release the photos of Steenkamp’s injuries.
She says it was the state who asked for them to be withheld in the first place.
As a result, she does not think there needs to be a separate application, as the same party – that is , the state – is making the case to make them public now.
She allows the request.
While we wait for the judge to return, some insight on why Oscar Pistorius decided to give an interview to ITV, which will be broadcast next week. It prompted criticism from Gerrie Nel in court, as the prosecutor accused him of giving his version of what happened on the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp to a TV channel and not to the court:
The statement, from Pistorius’ uncle Arnold Pistorius, explains:
We have been deeply respectful of the legal process and mindful not to contribute to the media frenzy that has characterised this case. We declined almost all requests for interviews and comment …
Despite the many, many requests for interviews with Oscar from across the globe – often coupled with huge financial inducements – we have been absolutely consistent in our position that there would be no interview, or media engagement, for Oscar’s financial benefit … Neither Oscar nor the Pistorius family will make any money out of this documentary …
Not knowing what the future holds for Oscar after this week, I decided it was necessary to take up one media offer that would provide our family with a voice … I wish to make it very clear that this engagement with ITV was my decision, and not Oscar’s initiative.
Judge Masipa says she will retire now to think about the application on the photographs and to decide a date for sentencing. The court breaks.
Roux has finished. Nel returns to the topic of the application to release the photos of Steenkamp.
Nel says the court can agree that the photos can only be shown in court, or made available to the media. They are exhibits and so public documents. They were not made public only to “protect the integrity of the deceased”.
But now, he says, it’s the view of the Steenkamp family that the images ought to be released:
They have to bear the consequences … We think it’s time that people should see what those bullets did; what the accused did.
Barry Roux now turns to his rebuttal of the state’s closing argument.
He says Barry Steenkamp repeated in his evidence that he still believes there was an argument between his daughter and Pistorius on the night she was killed. Roux says the state’s decision to pursue a case based on an assumption that Pistorius deliberately killed her has exacerbated the family’s distress.
Nel asks the judge if she will rule today on the release of the Steenkamp injury photographs. Masipa says this would be extending the scope of these proceedings – we are here for sentencing.
The witness, Barry Steenkamp, testified in these proceedings, Nel says.
The court should have access to these photographs. The court itself should revisit certain things in sentencing …
Four bullets tore through her body. The court should take that into account as an aggravating factor … It’s part of sentencing.
Roux speaks now. He says it should be a separate application that would need separate submissions. This isn’t the appropriate stage, he says.
Must children look at it? … What is going to be achieved?
Nel says Barry Steenkamp did not display anger or hatred towards Pistorius, only grief. He said he should pay for his crime, but not that he must be “sent away for ever”.
#OscarPistorius Nel: Mr Roux says the accused punishes himself. How?
— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) June 15, 2016
I know Barry Steenkamp punishes himself. BB
Nel asks for photographs of Steenkamp's injuries to be made public
Nel asks Judge Masipa to lift the order banning the publication of crime scene photographs of Reeva Steenkamp, as requested by her father in his testimony yesterday.
Barry Steenkamp said he wanted the world to see the wounds inflicted on her and the pain she must have felt.
Carl Pistorius, the defendant’s brother, who is in court, has tweeted to say the move is “distasteful”.
This application is distasteful to all parties. Except perhaps some parties who stand to profit from such.
— Carl Pistorius (@carlpistorius) June 15, 2016
Updated
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.
— Milton Nkosi (@nkosi_milton) June 15, 2016
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.
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.
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.
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.
Updated
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.
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.
Justice must still be properly administered … despite an admission of forgiveness.
Forgiveness has more to do with the person forgiving than with the crime.
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.
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.
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.
Updated
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.
The court can’t be seen to condone serious crime, he adds.
It’s not a clean slate. The minimum sentencing is applicable.
Hearing resumes
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.
The starting point is 15 years, he says.
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.
The court has now adjourned for the lunch break.
Pistorius 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.
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.
Undue 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.
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.
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.
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.
Nel moves on to the vulnerabilities outlined by the defence.
Dr Scholtz testified to Pistorius’ anxiety and depression, Nel says – so why did Pistorius hoard his medicine in his cell?
Scholtz also said he should be hospitalised, Nel goes on. Yet no steps were taken to hospitalise him.
“Isn’t it time we now finally let the world see what this accused did with four black talon rounds through a door?” Nel asks.
He says Barry Steenkamp wanted everyone to see the photographs of Reeva. Nel says he will apply, as per the family’s request, for the crime scene images to be released.
State begins closing argument
Gerrie Nel says that the argument that Pistorius thought the person behind the door was an intruder does not make it a less serious crime. Does it detract from the fact that he is a murderer?
He says he won’t deal with perceptions but with facts.
If you want to talk about a broken man, he says, let’s talk about Barry Steenkamp.
Nel acknowledges that the defence says Pistorius has accepted the court’s findings of murder. That is not the same as accepting what he did, the prosecutor says.
Roux says Pistorius should be sentenced to community service.
It is for the court to decide, he adds. But there is a reason why the trial court has discretion over sentencing.
The court should strike a balance between aggravating factors and the “many, many” mitigating factors.
The defence argument is over. Roux sits down. It’s over to Gerrie Nel for the state.
'No purpose served' by sending Pistorius to prison - defence
Roux turns to the sentence:
South Africa is a progressive constitutional country where punishment must have a rational purpose.
The sentence needs to be appropriate to the individual, he says. The court needs to look for opportunities for rehabilitation. An excessive punishment could have the opposite effect:
Punishment is not meant to break the defendant … The accused does not fall into the category of offender who should be removed from society.
There is no purpose served.
He says a prison sentence imposed at this point is merely a “veil for retribution”. The deterrent effect has already been achieved by Pistorius’ first stint in prison.
Updated
“We don’t have to be psychologists” to see Pistorius is a broken man, Roux tells Masipa:
He desperately does not want to hide behind fame … He wants to be treated like someone unknown, someone who has done wrong and must be punished.
Pistorius replaces his prostheses as Roux tells the court:
I don’t want to overplay vulnerability, that’s not what I want to do. I don’t want to overplay disability. But the time has come that we must just look with different eyes, at least with unbiased eyes.
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?
Updated
Pistorius removes prostheses
Roux calls Pistorius forward. He tells the court this will be embarrassing for his client.
He asks a weeping Pistorius to remove his prostheses and stand on his stumps in front of the court. He does so slowly, then walks haltingly. He appears to be in pain and struggles to retain his balance. He holds on to a desk for support.
His doctor moves forward to support him as he stumbles.
Roux points to him, saying this is the man who was frightened by a noise at 3am. This is who is being sentenced.
Roux moves on to the televising of the trial.
No other accused has ever had to endure this level of publicity, misinformation and character assassination.
It was not a decision that benefited Pistorius, he says, and opened him up to a trial by public opinion and a “media frenzy”.
The perception persists that the death of Steenkamp was gender-related, Roux tells the judge:
This case has nothing to do with gender violence.
The refusal by so many people to accept the facts of the case means Pistorius will never regain his status in society.
Roux points out that Pistorius’ original planned release from prison – approved by the parole board – was delayed after a government minister intervened. This has not happened to anyone else, he says. Why wait until that last minute to intervene? That decision could have been made weeks earlier.
He says Pistorius has also spent many months under “correctional supervision” (that is, house arrest at his uncle’s home).
Roux says the isolation of confinement “can amount to torture” but the defence won’t say Pistorius’ treatment was such.
He says Pistorius completed all his rehabilitation programmes – including one called Anger In, Anger Out – “with excellence”.
He says Pistorius has taken responsibility for what he has done.
“He wants to put back,” Roux tells the court, detailing Pistorius’ charity work and a potential job leading an early childhood development programme. (This is the job offer from his uncle Arnold Pistorius we heard about earlier this week.)
Roux says Pistorius has already spent 12 months in jail and that life in prison for a disabled person is hard:
You do everything in your cell … You’re segregated, you don’t go to dining room to eat with the other guys, you eat in your room because you’re at risk.It’s punishment, we understand that … but it does not mean it’s easier for him.
Court resumes
Roux is continuing with his closing argument for the defence. He is reconfirming the findings from Scholtz’s report: anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder. He says the PTSD is because of the shooting.
Scholtz said Pistorius should be hospitalised, he reminds the judge.
During the break, reporters in court say Pistorius has changed his clothes, from a suit to a hoodie and shorts – it’s possible the defence is going to discuss his prostheses.
#OscarPistorius Ditches suit for hoodie during court recess. But the familiar head in hands look is unchanged pic.twitter.com/MAEHmUXD7h
— John Ray (@johnrayitv) June 15, 2016
During the break, reporters in court say Pistorius has changed his clothes, from a suit to a hoodie and shorts – possibly the defence is going to discuss his prostheses.
The court has taken a short adjournment.
Roux now turns to the report by Prof Jonathan Scholtz, a clinical psychologist who testified for the state on Monday. Scholtz said Pistorius’ conditions – depression, anxiety, PTSD - had worsened.
Why would he be biased, Roux asks.
He is dismissive of one state witness, prison nurse Charlotte Mashabane who said Pistorius acted aggressively towards her. A man in pain would demand his medication, Roux says – he would do the same.
In mitigation, Roux says, he wants the court to consider that Pistorius is “vilified”, “in pain constantly”, consumed by “self-loathing”.
He is someone who changed perceptions of disability.
He is a first-time offender and is remorseful. He lost a “person he genuinely loved … he must live with that for the rest of his life”.
Roux reminds the court that Pistorius’ mental and physical vulnerabilities were taken into account in his first sentencing.
Pistorius has punished himself and will punish himself for the rest of his life, far more than any court can, he says.
Barry Roux’s tactic here, it appears, is to point out all the ways in which the supreme court of appeal – while overturning the culpable homicide verdict in favour of one of murder – did not deviate from Judge Masipa’s original ruling.
The difference, he argues, is on a point of law. The facts as established in Masipa’s ruling still stand: Pistorius did not intend to kill Steenkamp. He was afraid, anxious and vulnerable.
That ruling initially led to a sentence of five years, of which Pistorius has already served the 10-month prison portion.
The leap to a 15-year minimum term would be too much, Roux is implying.
Roux: It should not even be in dispute that there are significant compelling circumstances …
He incorrectly in law fired four shots … but it does not mean that he did not want to protect … it does not mean that he did not think it was an intruder.
You cannot ignore that.
Roux says much of the evidence from the trial – about screams, Steenkamp’s jeans, the fans on the balcony – is irrelevant. It was introduced to try to make the case that Pistorius “acted with direct intent” to kill Steenkamp. That argument was rejected, he says.
There was no direct intent to kill an intruder either, he says. Pistorius did not aim at chest height. The finding from the supreme court was that he ought to have foreseen that he could kill somebody, not that he directly intended to kill.
Roux: He is punished for ever and ever … That is what he is going through because some people refuse to sit back and look at the true facts.
Roux says Pistorius “took all possible steps to save the deceased’s life”.
He notes that the supreme court did not overturn findings that Pistorius had anxiety and was driven by fear.
Critics don’t want to see his vulnerability, he adds:
They want to see Oscar Pistorius running to the bathroom with a gold medal round his neck.
Sentencing is subjective, Roux says. It can deal with Pistorius’ vulnerability.
He was not “driven by evil intent”. He was afraid. He was trying to protect his girlfriend.
We know where we live. We are fearful. A logical thought process would be: an intruder.
Roux says people felt sorry for Vleis Visagie, the rugby player who killed his own daughter.
But they did not feel sorry for Pistorius, he goes on.
In both cases, we are dealing with a reduced moral blame-worthiness, he tells the judge.
Pistorius was mistaken but he did believe himself to be in danger. The original trial court accepted he heard a sound at 3am. He thought an intruder had come in through the bathroom window.
Roux is reminding the judge that her original findings broadly accepted the Pistorius version of events. The supreme court left these findings “undisturbed”, he says.
Roux says Pistorius did not “gamble with Reeva’s life”.
He was afraid. It was not rational. But was he afraid of his girlfriend or an intruder, Roux asks. He reminds Masipa that she ruled he had not meant to kill Steenkamp.
#OscarPistorius now crying again as his lawyer gives final argument #sabcnews pic.twitter.com/X9qmCHWcJZ
— Chriselda Lewis (@Chriseldalewis) June 15, 2016
Roux says this court previously accepted that Pistorius felt himself to be in fear of his life.
He says Masipa’s original judgment was that his actions were “on the border of dolus eventualis” (the principle that he foresaw that firing into the door could cause the death of whoever was behind it) but that he had not foreseen it.
The supreme court ruled that he must have foreseen it.
We are talking about the difference between being on the border and across that border, Roux says. He seems to be suggesting that this is only a small legal nudge, not warranting a sentence uplift from five to 15 years.
Roux tells judge she must not allow herself to be “drowned by perceptions”. The supreme court considered only legal aspects, he says, not the facts of the case.
He says, therefore, that this sentencing should rely on the same facts as the original sentencing (which resulted in a five-year term, of which Pistorius has served 10 months in prison).
#OscarPistorius Roux; 'Nothing in SCA judgement saying there was an argument, she ran to cubicle, that he wanted to shoot her!'
— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) June 15, 2016
Roux says the court must feel unease with anyone saying Pistorius must go to jail for 15 years. He was on his stumps. He thought his girlfriend was in the bedroom.
It cannot be. It cannot be.
#OscarPistorius Roux says "do you send that person 15 years to jail?"
— Maryke Vermaak (@MarykeVermaak) June 15, 2016
MV
Updated
Roux: How must it feel when you shoot your own girlfriend?
What do I want to happen this man, Roux asks.
He mentions rugby player Vleis Visagie, who accidentally shot and killed his daughter. He was not prosecuted.
Roux says he is not asking here for a non-prosecution.
You can make a mistake … You shoot at a person under a mistaken belief.
How must you feel when you fire those shots that you should not have, and it’s your own girlfriend?
What do we do? We criticise.
There can never be an appropriate sentence in the eyes of those who think there was an argument, Steenkamp ran to the toilet and he killed her, Roux says. They are not the objective facts.
He says when it comes to sentencing, you cannot decide a punishment based on “fanciful doubt”.
How can I add years, how can I ask for a more severe sentence, if the very real possibility is that he didn’t do it?
There is a third enemy, Roux says: an inability to set aside the negative emotions caused by the misperceptions and look at the true facts.
He says it’s not about “what people thought” but objective evidence.
Roux says he can only have “empathy and sympathy” with Steenkamp’s parents. But he mentions ideas “put in their heads”.
He says a “second enemy … is an unwillingness or an inability … to see the accused in the context of that evening”.
He says many can see only the gold medallist, the strong person winning races.
The real facts become concealed … It was not the man winning gold medals that must be judged … It was a 1.5m person, standing on his stumps, three o’clock in the morning when it was dark.
Roux: There are serious enemies, so to speak, in this matter.
There is a perception created that [Pistorius] wanted to kill the deceased … Was it really true that he wanted to kill her?
Is it not perhaps a different picture?
The defence and state have now called all their witnesses and we will move on to closing arguments.
Barry Roux for the defence is up first. He says his team compared Masipa’s original judgment and compared it with that handed down by the supreme court “in order to try to present to you a complete picture”.
Roux pushes Martin: did she know about the Valentine’s card Steenkamp made for Pistorius? Only from court, she tells him.
Her questioning is now over.
Roux now reads from an interview in 2013 given by Steenkamp’s friend Gina Myers in which she says Reeva was happy in her relationship.
Martin says she cannot speak for Myers. She says she doesn’t know what Roux expects her to say. She says she thinks her cousin was fond of Pistorius but did not love him.
Myers, incidentally, is tweeting at the moment; she does not appear to support this line of questioning:
This is honestly one of the most frustrating feelings in the world.
— Gina Myers (@gi_myers) June 15, 2016
Barry Roux is up for the defence. He says he was very careful and respectful with Barry Steenkamp yesterday and feels sorry for the family.
But he says the time has come to challenge some of what has been heard. He says the family story has changed.
He reads reports from friends of Steenkamp’s who described a good relationship between her and Pistorius. One said Steenkamp had said she loved him and would marry him if he asked her.
Martin says this was not what her cousin told her. They were close, she says:
Reeva had the opportunity to tell me she loved Oscar and she never did.
Martin: We just wanted the truth. People say we got the truth, but we didn’t. Oscar’s version changed so many times …
He never apologised for shooting Reeva. I don’t feel the truth came out.
Nel says he has no further questions for Martin.
Nel asks her about family celebrations: Christmas and birthdays. Martin says they are difficult, especially Valentine’s day, the anniversary of Steenkamp’s death.
We don’t want every occasion to become a funeral.
She says Barry Steenkamp, Reeva’s father, is “a broken man”. He feels guilt at being unable to protect his daughter.
Updated
Gerrie Nel asks her about an interview Pistorius has given to Britain’s ITV channel. She says she thinks it “very unfair” and “hurtful”.
He had a chance to tell his story in court, she says.
Martin: I saw my dad cry for the very first time when Reeva died, and I saw him cry for the second time when he heard I had to testify again.
To have to be exposed to the media … it’s very difficult.
She says her children “suffer very much”, as does she and her wider family:
Besides the obvious anxiety and depression, as a family we’ll never be able to carry on life as normal.
She says people will often want to talk to her and her family about Pistorius:
It’s never going to leave us.
Martin says not a day goes by without her thinking of Reeva.
She says she copes because she has to, but the scars run very deep:
We’ll never get over it.
Final state witness is Kim Martin
Kim Martin is a cousin of Reeva Steenkamp, and previously gave evidence to this same court during Pistorius’ initial sentencing hearing in 2014 – at which he was given a five-year sentence for culpable homicide.
Martin told the court then that hearing news of her cousin’s death news felt like “the end of the world”:
My mother was hysterical and that’s when I knew it was true. That was for me the end of the world. Everything was just a blur from then onwards … We were all like, ‘why, why, why Reeva?’ It was the worst, worst experience I have ever, ever been through.
Court resumes
Judge Thokozile Masipa arrives.
She said yesterday that she wanted to conclude the testimony and arguments for both sides by the end of today, even if that meant the court sitting for longer.
The state witnesses
- Barry Steenkamp, Reeva’s father, said he thought the world should see the photographs of her wounds, to see “the pain she must have gone through”.
- Steenkamp said he did not know his daughter was in a relationship with Pistorius.
- He said he and his wife June had forgiven Pistorius because of their Christian faith. But he added:
Oscar has to pay for what he did. He has to pay for it …
That is up to the court. And we will go by the decision that the court hands down to Oscar. But he has to pay for his crime.
- Prison nurse Charlotte Mashabane testified to incidents in which she said Pistorius had been aggressive towards her, although Barry Roux, for the defence, accused her of exaggerating her account to paint Pistorius in a negative light.
The defence witnesses
- Clinical psychologist Professor Jonathan Scholtz gave evidence on Monday. He said Pistorius should not return to prison:
Further imprisonment would have a detrimental effect on him.
Mr Pistorius would be better served … if he gave back in a positive and constructive way, using his skills.
- The doctor said Pistorius’ depression, anxiety, paranoia and social phobia had worsened since his trial. He has post-traumatic stress disorder but is not a psychopath. His risk of violent reoffending was low.
-
Ebba Gudny Gudmundsdottir, from Iceland, gave evidence yesterday. She said Pistorius had become a close friend when she contacted him about her son, who was born without legs. The then athlete had encouraged him when he struggled with his prostheses and gave him one of his gold medals.
- Pastor Marius Nel said Pistorius was a member of his church and had volunteered to work with schools to help students with fitness and nutrition. The pastor visited Pistorius in prison and found him “a broken man”.
Opening summary
Today the state is due to put forward its final witness in the sentencing hearing that will determine the fate of Oscar Pistorius.
He faces a possible 15-year prison sentence after his conviction for the culpable homicide of Reeva Steenkamp in 2013 was upgraded to murder by South Africa’s supreme court.
Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the court yesterday that his last witness would today offer “emotional evidence” on the impact of the murder.
The high court in Pretoria has so far heard moving testimony from Barry Steenkamp, Reeva’s father, who broke down as he told the judge, Thokozile Masipa, that he talked to his daughter everyday, and had pushed diabetes needles into his arms and stomach to try to share in the pain she must have felt.
Pistorius killed Steenkamp, his girlfriend, by firing four bullets through a locked toilet cubicle door at his Pretoria home. He has always claimed he believed he was tackling an intruder.
I’ll post a summary shortly of the evidence heard so far. My colleague Jason Burke has been in court and filed this dispatch on yesterday’s hearing.
Comments are currently switched off on this live blog, but please do contact me via Twitter @Claire_Phipps with comments, thoughts and questions.
