Summary: day one
The first day of the hearing to determine what sentence Oscar Pistorius will receive for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp has concluded.
Here are the key developments.
Two witnesses will speak in mitigation
- The defence says it will call two witnesses: the first, psychologist Professor Jonathan Scholtz, gave evidence today. The second, so far unnamed, will speak about Pistorius’ charity work.
Scholtz: Pistorius should not return to prison
- Scholtz said in his view Pistorius was “broken” and should be in hospital rather than prison.
Further imprisonment would have a detrimental effect on him.
[It] would not be psychologically or socially constructive.
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.
- Scholtz said Pistorius cannot bear the sound of gunfire, even on television, and has sold all his firearms.
Pistorius will not testify
- Scholtz said did not believe Pistorius was fit to testify in this hearing:
I don’t think he is able to be a witness in this trial: his condition is severe.
- But chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel asked why Pistorius had then been able to give an interview to Britain’s ITV, to be broadcast next week.
‘His risk of reoffending is low’
- The former athlete has participated in courses on anger management and restorative justice, and the doctor believed his risk of violent reoffending was low.
But he was ‘verbally violent and aggressive’ in prison
- Nel said a separate report by a prison psychologist found Pistorius was “verbally violent and aggressive” towards staff.
- Scholtz justified omitting this report from his own, saying it was a “poor report” and “unscientific”.
- Barry Roux, for the defence, said an episode in which Pistorius banged a table came after he had been denied access to a painkilling drug, Voltaren, for three weeks.
There are conflicting versions of his time in prison
- The prosecution argued that information in the psychological report about Pistorius being assaulted in prison and witnessing a hanging were untrue.
- Scholtz rejected a prosecution claim that two antidepressant drugs – Molipaxin and Cipralex – found in Pistorius’ cell were “illegal”.
Pistorius ‘accepts he murdered Steenkamp’
- Nel pushed Scholtz to confirm if Pistorius now admitted intentionally firing into the door and the person behind it (Pistorius had previously insisted it was an accident and/or self-defence):
Nel: Did Mr Pistorius indicate to you that he intentionally shot at the door knowing there was a person in the bathroom?
Scholtz: Yes …
Nel: That’s the first version of him intentionally shooting at the person that we’ve had in this court.
It’s not clear if the Steenkamps will testify
- Nel has not yet revealed how many witnesses he will call, or who they will be. Reports suggested Barry Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp’s father, might appear in aggravation of sentence.
- Nel said June Steenkamp had forgiven Pistorius, but “for her sake, not for his sake”.
- Scholtz told the court Pistorius had paid the Steenkamps R6,500 a month because:
This is the kind of person he is … It was not seen by him as some kind of means to change anything … This is what he does: he helps.
The court resumes on Tuesday at 9.30am local time (7.30am GMT), when we expect to hear from the second witness for the defence. The live blog will return then. Thanks for reading and for your comments and questions.
#OscarPistorius -- leaves the court after day one of his sentencing hearing. He walks right past me. pic.twitter.com/muvSRXo7lA
— Milton Nkosi (@nkosi_milton) June 13, 2016
Scholtz and Roux agree that two medications found in Pistorius’ cell, one of which was Molipaxin (apologies, I did not catch the name of the second drug), were “not illegal”. Both are antidepressants.
[Edit: a reader via Twitter points out that the second drug mentioned was Cipralex. Many thanks.]
The witness is now excused. The first witness testimony is done.
Court now adjourns to tomorrow at 9.30am local time (8.30am GMT).
I will post a summary of today’s events shortly.
Updated
Barry Roux says Pistorius paid the R6,500-a-month to the Steenkamp family without any conditions.
Scholtz: This is the kind of person he is … It was not seen by him as some kind of means to change anything …
This is what he does: he helps. It comes almost naturally to him and he enjoys doing it.
Roux turns to the incident mentioned by Nel in which Pistorius apparently banged his hands on a table.
Roux says Pistorius was frustrated because he had swollen hands and a medicine (Voltaren, an anti-inflammatory drug) brought to the prison by his family was not given to him.
Scholtz says this was a situation of high stress. One incident doesn’t mean that a person has a violent personality.
Barry Roux, for the defence, is on his feet again for re-examination.
He asks Roux to read from a different section of the prison psychologist report, which concludes that the risk of reoffending is low.
Scholtz says he agrees with this part.
Why were you at first reluctant to take on the writing of this report, Nel asks Scholtz.
Scholtz says it was an “ethical dilemma” – because he had already assessed Pistorius in 2014, and “your objectivity is affected the second time”.
You’re biased towards the accused, Nel alleges.
Scholtz says he merely tried to “present the court with this person in the fullest extent”. He wanted the court to “see the person that is being sentenced”.
That’s it – Nel takes his seat.
If someone is suffering from PTSD, is it safe for him to work with children, Nel wants to know.
Scholtz says he wouldn’t expect there to be any problem. Pressed by Nel he says Pistorius might “snap” if there was a confrontation, or pressure builds up, or an argument – but says this is unlikely to be a problem working with children.
Updated
Nel says Scholtz failed to include the negative portions of the prison psychologist report in his own report.
Scholtz said in his own assessment he “could not find any anger or aggression” in Pistorius.
Gerrie Nel is not letting go of this point. He continues to read from the prison psychologist report, which says that Pistorius refused to acknowledge he had committed a crime.
Scholtz says he saw Pistorius a year later:
It is not like that now.
He knew that you were seeing him to draft a report for re-sentencing, Nel says.
Judge Masipa intervenes: she wants to know more about the prison psychologist report.
It says that at the beginning he struggled to adapt to prison life and was verbally violent, she says.
It doesn’t say anything about him being violent in nature.
Scholtz agrees:
I am happy with my view that he is not a violent man.
#OscarPistorius Scholtz says anger is normal for someone suffering from PTSD. ‘But he’s not a violent person in nature'
— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) June 13, 2016
Scholtz says he spent 27 hours with Pistorius and it was not his impression that he was violent and aggressive.
Nel says the prison psychologist saw Pistorius on three occasions. Scholtz insists the report is “limited”.
Scholtz says he thought the report was “unscientific”.
Nel is incredulous: it is a factual paragraph, he says. Why did you not talk to the prison psychologist if you did not agree with her, he asks:
Why would you select only positive things that suits your view … Why would you do that?
Why was the prison psychologist report not included in Scholtz’s report, Nel wants to know:
You never mentioned another report to this court: why?
Scholtz says he didn’t want to “single out” a colleague. He didn’t agree with her findings.
#OscarPistorius Nel turns to the report Scholtz gave to the court - Nel asks why the report didn't include a report by prison psychologist?
— Maryke Vermaak (@MarykeVermaak) June 13, 2016
Scholtz says he did read that report, but he “didn’t deem it necessary” to refer to it in his own report.
Nel: I know why.
He reads from the report, which says Pistorius was “verbally violent and aggressive” towards staff in prison.
Scholtz says he thought it was a “poor report”. He says Pistorius was going through an “adaptation” of being incarcerated.
Nel: I find your answers to be totally biased to the accused. They are not objective.
Do you think you can be objective, Nel asks Scholtz. Are you able to put all factors before the court, positive and negative? Scholtz says yes, he can be objective.
Having gone through a trial would cause depression, wouldn’t it, Nel asks Scholtz.
The doctor agrees that it would exacerbate depression. He says there is no “easy fix”, it could take years for his condition to improve.
Scholtz: There is consistent adversity. The trial isn’t finished, he doesn’t know where he stands.
Nel wants to know about Pistorius’ current medications.
Scholtz says yes, for depression, anxiety and insomnia, prescribed by his own psychiatrist, Dr Bosch.
You’re of the opinion that Pistorius needs to be hospitalised, Nel says – don’t you think you should have mentioned this to the psychiatrist?
Scholtz said he mentioned it to Bosch and to the defence.
Did Bosch or the defence counsel do anything, Nel wants to know.
No, Scholtz says.
Court resumes
Judge Masipa arrives and the hearing begins again.
Gerrie Nel requested this lengthy break in order to consult with prosecution experts about the report by psychologist Dr Jonathan Scholtz, a witness appearing for the defence.
Oscar Pistorius, who left the courtroom during the break, is now heading back. The hearing is due to resume in around 20 minutes.
#OscarPistorius walking back to court.@MarykeVermaak pic.twitter.com/KfNJHVRtPH
— Jacaranda News (@JacaNews) June 13, 2016
What we've learned so far
The court has now taken a break until 2.30pm local time (12.30pm GMT) to allow the state to consult its own experts on the contents of the defence psychiatric report.
Here’s what we’ve heard so far in this first morning of Oscar Pistorius’ sentencing hearing for the murder of Reeva Steenkamp:
First defence witness
- The defence says it will call two witnesses to argue in mitigation: the first, Professor Jonathan Scholtz, has been giving evidence today. The second, so far unnamed, will speak about Pistorius’ charity work.
- Scholtz said in his view Pistorius was “broken” and should be in hospital rather than prison.
Further imprisonment would have a detrimental effect on him.
[It] would not be psychologically or socially constructive.
Mr Pistorius would be better served … if he gave back in a positive and constructive way, using his skills.
- The doctor said Pistorius’ psychological condition – including depression, anxiety, paranoia and social phobia – had worsened since his trial. He has post-traumatic stress disorder but displays no indication of psychopathy.
- Scholtz said Pistorius cannot bear the sound of gunfire, even on television, and has sold all his firearms.
- He did not believe Pistorius was fit to testify in this hearing:
I don’t think he is able to be a witness in this trial: his condition is severe.
- The former athlete has participated in courses on anger management and restorative justice, and the doctor believed his risk of violent reoffending was low.
Cross-examination
- Gerrie Nel, for the state, repeatedly pushed Scholtz to confirm whether Pistorius had taken responsibility for murdering Steenkamp and if he had admitted intentionally firing into the door and the person behind it (previously, Pistorius has insisted it was an accident and/or self-defence):
Nel: Did Mr Pistorius indicate to you that he intentionally shot at the door knowing there was a person in the bathroom?
Scholtz: Yes …
Nel: That’s the first version of him intentionally shooting at the person that we’ve had in this court.
- Nel told Scholtz that June Steenkamp had forgiven Pistorius for her daughter’s murder “for her sake, not for his sake”, after the doctor suggested this was a mitigating factor in sentencing.
- The prosecutor argued that information in the psychological report about Pistorius being assaulted in prison and witnessing a hanging were untrue, and said he had acted aggressively towards a prison staff member.
- And Nel wondered why, if Pistorius was too unwell to speak at this hearing, he had been able to give an interview to ITV, to be broadcast next week.
I’ll be back with further live updates when the court resumes.
Nel says he would like the court to take a break so his own experts can look at Scholtz’s report.
He asks for the court to adjourn until 2.30pm.
The court takes a break.
Nel turns to the claim warders brought visitors to peer at him in his cell.Scholtz says happened twice that he knew, they'd switch on lights
— Aislinn Laing (@Simmoa) June 13, 2016
This did happen, Nel says. It happens to all inmates, when inspectors come to the prison.
That is not the context here, says Scholtz.
#OscarPistorius Scholtz: it was either family or friends of the warders and they were shown “there is Oscar”. BB
— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) June 13, 2016
Nel cites Scholtz’s earlier testimony that while in prison, Pistorius overheard an inmate being raped and later saw that the man had hanged himself.
Nel: That did not happen … Perhaps if Mr Pistorius was here [on the stand] he could have testified to that.
Nel says Pistorius complained a lot in prison.
It’s a different thing to complain about being assaulted, in a place where that shouldn’t happen, than to complain about having “no soap”, Scholtz argues.
Pistorius had access to an open courtyard, Nel points out, but the doctor says he was often too afraid to use it, “something might happen to him there”.
Defence witness: Pistorius 'assaulted in prison'
Nel turns to Pistorius’ period of imprisonment. He was not confined to his cell, Nel says, contrary to Scholtz’s report.
Scholtz says his understanding is that he was confined “most days” for up to 18 hours a day.
Nel says his cell was open during the day and he could move around the section he was held on. Scholtz says he was too fearful to leave his bed:
He had fear because someone did go through into his section and assaulted him there.
It’s not true, Nel says. He didn’t report this. It’s a lie, he says.
Updated
Nel: Your report deals with the accused and what’s best for the accused.
It doesn’t take other factors into account.
I just find it peculiar that you place a lot of emphasis [on] the negative media as a factor that impacts on the accused … You indicate that ‘his children may in future search the internet and find negative report of the trial’. Don’t you think the fact the father murdered somebody is more significant than negative reports?
Nel turns to the money paid by Pistorius to the Steenkamp family: R6,500 a month, which continued for about 17 months. He doesn’t want that back, Scholtz says.
The prosecutor says the R6,500 was viewed as part payment for a civil claim “by all parties concerned” and was meant to be kept confidential:
It then came out in the trial from the accused’s side.
June Steenkamp has said Pistorius’ apology in court left her “unmoved”, Nel tells Scholtz.
Scholtz says he understands that Pistorius did try to contact Steenkamp’s family directly after her death.
Did he try to contact them after he left prison, Nel asks. No, says Scholtz.
Nel says that would have been a good opportunity to do so.
Scholtz says Pistorius thought he might do so “at a later stage”.
Nel says there was an attempt by Pistorius to meet the family – in April, during preparations for the sentencing arguments.
Judge Masipa intervenes: the state wants to know what Pistorius told the doctor, not what the doctor understands from the court judgment.
She allows the question.
Nel: Did Mr Pistorius indicate to you that he intentionally shot at the door knowing there was a person in the bathroom?
Scholtz says yes, he did.
Nel says that would be the first admission by Pistorius. He says he doesn’t accept it.
That’s the first version of him intentionally shooting at the person that we’ve had in this court.
Nel says he would have liked to have been able to question Pistorius on this admission.
Listen carefully, Nel tells the witness. Did Pistorius tell you he armed himself and intentionally shot through the door?
Scholtz says he did not ask Pistorius this question.
So he intended to kill a person, just not Steenkamp, Nel asks.
Scholtz agrees – but Nel presses him. That’s his view, not that of Pistorius. Nel wants to know if Pistorius himself agrees that he intended to kill a person.
Scholtz: Perhaps these are legal nuances that I don’t understand properly.
Nel pushes on. Did he tell you he intended to shoot through the door at the person?
Barry Roux chips in: it is getting too technical, he says. It’s unfair to the witness, he adds. He says the court ruled that Pistorius foresaw that he could kill someone and proceeded anyway (dolus eventualis). It’s not about intending to kill.
Nel wants to know why Scholtz believes Pistorius has taken responsibility for his actions. Did he accept that he killed her intentionally, Nel asks.
Scholtz says even though he didn’t know it was Steenkamp behind the door, he does accept he killed her. He accepts he took a human life when he shouldn’t have and that is murder.
That’s your view, not his, says Nel.
Scholtz says Pistorius does accept it was murder because the court has said so.
(Nel is pushing him very hard on this point, and what Pistorius himself has actually said.)
Does he accept he intentionally fired four shots into the door, Nel asks.
Yes, says Scholtz.
He has never admitted that to the court, Nel says. He says this is yet another version of events from Pistorius.
Nel asks how Scholtz knows that the family of Reeva Steenkamp forgives Pistorius.
Scholtz says he has seen a letter they wrote to the parole board.
Reeva’s mother, June Steenkamp, wrote a book, Nel says. Scholtz doesn’t know about this.
Nel reads from the book, A Mother’s Story. He says she has forgiven him “for her sake, not for his sake”, because of her faith.
Updated
Nel now turns to the doctors who saw Pistorius while he was in prison. Scholtz says he knows he was visited by his private psychologist but is not aware of the others.
How then can you talk about the infection in his stumps, Nel asks. Scholtz says he was concerned with the psychological effects.
#OscarPistorius Nel hasnt lost his appetite for aggressive courtroom questioning since last here
— Alex Crawford (@AlexCrawfordSky) June 13, 2016
Nel turns to the medication Scholtz says Pistorius has been taking.
Scholtz confirms he has not seen the medication or the dosage, but has relied on what Pistorius told him.
Nel asks about Pistorius’ “temper tantrums” while in prison. He was “so agitated” when talking to someone in prison (named as Sister Mashabane) that “he banged a table in her presence” in January 2015. Scholtz isn’t aware of this incident.
Nel: He got so upset … He approached her in her office, he was shaking and he banged the table.
Nel asks Scholtz if he ever discussed with Pistorius why he fired the shots through the toilet cubicle door. He did not.
Why, Nel asks. Scholtz said in his view it no longer mattered what Pistorius thought about it, but what the court had ruled.
But, Nel says, you deal with his remorse. Isn’t it key that he accepts what he did?
Scholtz says Pistorius does accept that he took Reeva Steenkamp’s life.
Nel says there is a difference between accepting “I took her life” and “I murdered her”. It could be remorse for himself, he adds.
Scholtz says he can’t “clinically substantiate” the idea that Pistorius only feels sorry for himself.
Updated
Asked about TV interview, psychologist calls it "different circumstances" from trial. Nel: yes, because he can't be cross-examined.
— Geoffrey York (@geoffreyyork) June 13, 2016
Court resumes
(The live stream at the top of the blog doesn’t seem to have noticed this, apologies.)
Defence witness Dr Jonathan Scholtz is now being questioned by Gerrie Nel, for the state.
Scholtz told the court that Pistorius is not in a fit state to testify, but Nel wonders how he was able to do an interview with international media. (Pistorius has been interviewed for Britain’s ITV, for a programme to be shown after this hearing.) Scholtz says he did not know about the interview, and learned about it only yesterday.
During the break, it appears Pistorius approached the mother of Reeva Steenkamp but was rebuffed:
As he leaves court,a weeping Pistorius goes over to speak to June Steenkamp.He seems to get short shrift and stumbles away,his face crumpled
— Aislinn Laing (@Simmoa) June 13, 2016
Oscar Pistorius has not spoken in court, and we don’t expect him to be called to testify.
The defence said it would present two witnesses: Dr Jonathan Scholtz, who has said so far this morning that a further period of imprisonment would be “detrimental” to Pistorius; and a second witness who will apparently talk about Pistorius’ charity work.
Here’s Pistorius arriving at the court this morning.
Scholtz reiterates his earlier assertion that Pistorius ought to be under medical supervision:
If he was my patient in private practice, I would admit him to hospital.
The court now takes a short adjournment.
Scholtz is asked by Roux to turn to a theme aired during the original trial: the notion of “two Oscars”. The first Oscar being the athlete, tall on his prostheses, confident; the second the man on his stumps, anxious and vulnerable.
There’s more on that from the original trial here:
Scholtz says there is – almost – now a third Oscar, one who has given up, whose spirit is broken and does not have hope for the future.
Scholtz says he has concluded that Pistorius should not be returned to prison:
Further imprisonment would have a detrimental effect on him.
[It] would not be psychologically or socially constructive.
Mr Pistorius would be better served … if he gave back in a positive and constructive way, using his skills.
For the first five weeks in prison, Pistorius had no chair to sit on while showering and contracted an infection in his stumps, Scholtz says.
He overheard the rape of a fellow inmate who later hanged himself.
Pistorius was held separately from other prisoners for his safety, but the isolation had a negative effect on him, like “an animal in a cage”. It was effectively solitary confinement, Scholtz says.
There were several “humiliating and hurtful” experiences inside prison, he tells the court.
Scholtz says Pistorius has displayed “true remorse” and contributed financially to Reeva Steenkamp’s family for several months “without expecting the money back”.
Scholtz says the Steenkamp family has forgiven him.
He has complied with all conditions of his house arrest.
Pistorius is 'broken' and should be in hospital: defence witness
Scholtz says it is “good practice” to consider the offender’s personality as well as the facts of the case.
His conclusion for the court is that the following points could be taken into account:
- He is a first-time offender, intelligent, enrolled for a degree at the University of London.
- He has a supportive family, a home, and a job offer.
- He has spent 12 months in prison.
- He does not have any substance abuse problems.
- He is not antisocial or psychopathic.
- The risk for violent reoffending is low.
- He has a major depressive disorder, “with anxious distress”; and post-traumatic stress disorder, social phobia, agoraphobia and panic disorder.
- His mental health has deteriorated since 2014.
In layman’s terms, one would describe him as ‘broken’.
In my opinion his current condition requires hospitalisation
- He has taken responsibility for his actions.
- He wants to “continue helping people” and has previously made a positive contribution to society. He was a positive role model and “his fall from grace has been significant”.
- The offence was caused by his “human frailties”, not avarice. He did not benefit from the murder.
- He is a vulnerable person, physically, socially and psychologically.
Updated
Pistorius has plans for a life outside prison, Scholtz tells the court:
#OscarPistorius Scholtz: he would like to take up a job offer from Twin City Developments (<— his uncle Arnold’s company.) BB
— Barry Bateman (@barrybateman) June 13, 2016
Pistorius has sold all his firearms and never wants to touch one again, Scholtz says.
He adds that Pistorius told him it was wrong to take a human life, and only god could do that.
Defence witness says Pistorius has 'low risk' of future offending
Scholtz concludes that Pistorius is not a future danger:
The risk for future violence was low.
Scholtz stresses that #OscarPistorius cannot be defined as a psychopath. He scored 3 on test where anything over 12 raises concern.
— Karyn Maughan (@karynmaughan) June 13, 2016
Scholtz reads out a comparison of Pistorius’ test results from his 2014 assessments and his most recent ones. For most, his condition has worsened, he says.
His agoraphobia has increased, he says, in line with Pistorius’ “general feelings of vulnerability”.
He has “social phobia” – an “extreme self-consciousness and anxiety about being ridiculed and embarrassed”. This underlying tendency has worsened as a result of his arrest and trial, the doctor concludes.
Pistorius’ depression has worsened since 2014 “because he was unable properly to mourn the deceased”, Scholtz says. He also cites attacks on social media as a contributory factor to the depression.
According to Scholtz’s assessments, Pistorius rates high for paranoia and depression but low for psychopathic behaviour.
Mr Pistorius suffers from serious symptoms of depression … Mr Pistorius does not have the personality characteristics usually associated with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy.
[He has] a distrustful disposition, which explains his paranoia as he feels he is always being watched by the media.
The sound of gunfire is now unbearable for Pistorius, the doctor says, even on television.
#OscarPistorius Scholtz says Oscar never wants to hold a firearm again, has sold all his firearms.
— Gia Nicolaides (@GiaNicolaides) June 13, 2016
Updated
Scholtz says Pistorius’ relationship with Reeva Steenkamp was only the second romantic relationship in which he felt “real companionship”:
He often was approached by beautiful girls like models, but never reacted to their offers.
Scholtz says Pistorius takes solace in the knowledge that Steenkamp is now in god’s hands.
He was “genuine in his affection for the deceased … there were no signs of abuse or coercion”.
Scholtz turns to the murder of Reeva Steenkamp:
All of this changed when the incident took place in 2013 … his fall from grace was enormous.
Although he received support from many quarters, he was vilified by many.
He dealt with the trial … as best he could, but was unable to properly mourn the deceased.
Pistorius was not allowed to attend Steenkamp’s funeral, Scholtz says:
He was severely traumatised by the events.
Updated
Scholtz says Pistorius’ mother installed in him the idea that “god had a special plan for him” and encouraged him not to think of himself as disabled.
There were no behavioural problems throughout his time at school.
His life became “very structured and pre-determined” when he moved into professional athletics.
The doctor goes on to mention Pistorius’ appearance in a Time list of 100 influential people and an honorary degree from Strathclyde University.
Scholtz talks about Pistorius’ family background, including his mother’s preoccupation with fear of crime and her death when he was 15.
He is estranged from his father but has a close relationship with his uncle.
His sister Aimee Pistorius recently left South Africa, Scholtz says, because of the stress of the court case. This was a “big loss” for Oscar Pistorius, the doctor says.
#OscarPistorius Scholtz now going over OP's daily life - says he calls his aunt Mom.
— Maryke Vermaak (@MarykeVermaak) June 13, 2016
MV
Updated
Pistorius 'not fit to testify'
Scholtz says in his view:
I don’t think he is able to be a witness in this trial: his condition is severe.
In his assessments, he found:
His mood was anxious and depressed … He tended to derail and become tangential at times.
Pistorius was preoccupied with the upcoming sentencing and his guilt, Scholtz says, displaying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorder.
He is taking medication for depression, anxiety and insomnia.
Pistorius has attended several courses, Scholtz says, including sessions on anger management and restorative justice.
Updated
Scholtz runs through the list of people he spoke to for his current assessment, including Pistorius himself and family members, as well as his correctional services officer and a private psychologist.
He says he requested an interview with the parents of Reeva Steenkamp, but this was declined.
Scholtz talks through his 2014 assessment of Pistorius: you can read about that from our report at the time here. That report concluded that Pistorius had post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder, and could be considered a suicide risk.
Roux says the defence asked only that Scholtz should assess Pistorius and did not give him further instructions about the nature of his report. This new report has now been handed to the judge.
Scholtz says he had consultations with Pistorius, including a psychometric assessment and a risk assessment, and interviewed others who might have supporting information.
Calling Prof Scholtz is a clever move by Barry Roux - he was the court-appointed psychiatrist who evaluated Pistorius so has authority.
— Aislinn Laing (@Simmoa) June 13, 2016
The defence calls its first witness: Professor Jonathan Scholtz.
He says he works at Weskoppies psychiatric hospital, the University of Pretoria and private practice.
Roux says a report by Scholtz was previously presented to the court when he acted as an expert witness after Pistorius was referred by the court for a mental health evaluation.
Scholtz says he was concerned about the “ethical implications” when he was approached by the defence to compile his current report. He concluded after consultation that the move was sound.
Updated
Gerrie Nel, the lead prosecutor begins.
He runs through the sequence of events that has brought everybody back to this court.
Barry Roux says the defence will call two witnesses: Pistorius’ psychologist and someone who will talk about his charity work.
It appears at this stage that Pistorius himself will not testify.
Updated
Court hearing begins
Judge Thokozile Masipa has entered and the hearing is underway.
Masipa presided over the original trial that resulted in a verdict of culpable homicide – and cleared Pistorius of murder.
Now the supreme court of appeal has overturned that decision and found Pistorius guilty of murder, Masipa will hear arguments from the defence and the state about how long his sentence should be.
Reporters in the Pretoria high court say there is an unusually heavy police presence within the courtroom, with the hearing about to begin; one reporter counted 18 officers following Pistorius into the room:
#OscarPistorius SAPS on one side of courtroom. BB pic.twitter.com/M4elmMCLIk
— EWN Reporter (@ewnreporter) June 13, 2016
Oscar Pistorius has arrived at the court, and was ushered swiftly into the building by police officers past the waiting media.
His defence team, including lead counsel Barry Roux, is already in the courtroom, as is Gerrie Nel, for the state.
#OscarPistorius arrives in court. @ANN7tv pic.twitter.com/tyGhHUckjP
— Michael Appel (@TheMikeAppel) June 13, 2016
Updated
The Steenkamp and Pistorius families are already in the courtroom, though Oscar Pistorius himself is yet to arrive.
Both Barry and June Steenkamp, the parents of Reeva Steenkamp, are present. There have been reports that Barry Steenkamp – who has not previously spoken in court – might appear as a witness for the prosecution to argue for a strong sentence for the man who killed his daughter.
#OscarPistorius The court is packed - family and friends already in court
— Maryke Vermaak (@MarykeVermaak) June 13, 2016
MV pic.twitter.com/6C8tTM9P2D
Aimee Pistorius and Carl Pistorius, the siblings of Oscar Pistorius, are also in attendance, along with wider family, including Arnold Pistorius, his uncle, at whose home the disgraced athlete has been living under house arrest since October 2015.
His estranged father Henke Pistorius is also in court.
How did we get here, more than three years after Pistorius shot dead Reeva Steenkamp at his Pretoria home, firing four bullets through a locked toilet cubicle door?
In 2014, the former athlete was found guilty by Judge Masipa – after a trial lasting many months – of culpable homicide, but cleared of murder. Masipa found that while Pistorius had acted recklessly, he had not intended to kill Steenkamp.
But an appeal court last December overturned that ruling, finding him guilty of murder. The five supreme court judges ruled unanimously:
As a result of the errors of law … and on a proper appraisal of the facts, he ought to have been convicted not of culpable homicide on that count but of murder.
In the interests of justice the conviction and the sentence imposed in respect thereof must be set aside and the conviction substituted with a conviction of the correct offence.
The judges said Masipa had been wrong on several points of law, chief among them her conclusion that Pistorius had not foreseen that his actions could kill somebody (a legal principle known as dolus eventualis). Justice Eric Leach, reading the ruling on behalf of the bench, said:
I have no doubt … the accused must have foreseen and therefore did foresee that whoever was behind that door might die.
This week’s sentencing hearing – officially a continuation of the original trial – takes place once again in front of Masipa, who will decide the fresh sentence.
Opening summary
Welcome to live coverage as what looks to be the final stage of the long trial of Oscar Pistorius for the death of Reeva Steenkamp gets underway in Pretoria today.
Pistorius will appear before his original trial judge, Thokozile Masipa, for a sentencing hearing, as his lawyers seek to persuade the court that his circumstances mitigate against the minimum jail term for murder of 15 years.
The hearing is expected to take several days, perhaps until Wednesday. The judge will then retire to consider the arguments in mitigation and aggravation of sentence, and could return with her decision as early as Friday – although she could take as long as a week.
Pistorius has so far served one year inside Kgosi Mampuru II prison, and has spent the months since he was released in October 2015 under house arrest conditions at his uncle’s home. It is expected that his legal team will argue that this should be taken into account when determining any further sentence.
It’s possible, though not confirmed, that Pistorius could take the stand himself.
The state is expected to put forward witnesses, with reports this weekend suggesting that Barry Steenkamp, the father of Reeva, could take the stand. It would be his first testimony in court, after ill-health forced him to watch much of the original trial unfold on television.
Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead by Pistorius at his home in the early hours of 13 February 2013. He claimed he had believed her to be an intruder, but an appeal court last year ruled that he had acted with criminal intent and should be found guilty of her murder.
For legal reasons, comments are not switched on for this live blog at the moment, but do contact me via Twitter @Claire_Phipps with any questions or comments.
Updated
