The NPA will appeal Oscar Pistorius' six-year jail sentence, it said yesterday (Thursday), describing the sentence handed out by Judge Thokozila Masipa in the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) as ‘shockingly too lenient'. It said the sentence had 'resulted in an injustice’ with the ‘potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute’, notes Daily News. Pistorius was sentenced on 6 July for fatally shooting his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day in 2013. He was initially convicted of culpable homicide and received a five-year sentence, but the SCA changed the conviction to murder and ordered that he be re-sentenced. A TimesLIVE report notes June and Barry Steenkamp’s lawyer‚ Tania Koen‚ said the couple had no input on the decision. ‘As they have no input in the decision of the state to appeal‚ they are focusing their energy on the upcoming official media launch of The Reeva Rebecca Steenkamp Foundation on 19 August 2016‚ on what would have been Reeva’s 33rd birthday,’ she said.

Full TimesLIVE report  

The seriousness of the crime was not reflected in the judgment, according to the NPA. ‘We respectfully submit that the sentence of six years' imprisonment does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime of murder and the natural indignation and outrage of the public‚’ it said in its application. A TimesLIVE report notes Masipa deviated from sentencing Pistorius to the prescribed 15-year minimum sentence to be imposed for murder because of what she believed were compelling and substantial circumstances to impose a lesser sentence. ‘We respectfully submit that it was a procedural irregularity not to formally record what the substantial and compelling circumstances are which justified the imposition of a le sser sentence than the minimum prescribed sentence of 15 years' imprisonment. It is unclear to the (NPA) what precisely those circumstances are‚’ the NPA said. The prosecution said the court failed to take into account three major aggravating factors when it sentenced Pistorius. The first was that it was in the bedroom that Pistorius had formed the intention to shoot and when he realised that there was someone behind the toilet door‚ he fired four shots. Also, both the SCA and the High Court rejected the argument that Pistorius acted in private defence. The prosecution said there was no justification for his actions. The third aggravating factor was that Masipa failed to take into account that Pistorius ‘fired four shots through the door. And he never offered an acceptable explanation for having done so’.

Full TimesLIVE report  

Masipa had also failed to take into account that Reeva's right to life was ‘needlessly taken from her’, said the NPA, adding that insufficient weight was given to the fact that Pistorius' showed disregard for human life. According to a News24 report, the NPA said Pistorius was quick to resort to gun violence ‘to kill the person behind the toilet door’. ‘This was…indicative thereof that the accused flagrantly disregarded the sanctity of the life of a human being, and indeed, that the accused regarded such life as cheap or of little or no value.’

Full News24 report  

This time it’s personal. That, according to a report in The Herald, is the opinion of the Pistorius family. It quotes Pistorius’ uncle, Arnold, as saying: ‘It’s in Nel’s character to do these things. What is not personal?’ He said the appeal was a waste of time and resources. ‘It is something that legal experts believe the NPA has a very slim chance of winning,’ he added. However, criminal law expert Llewellyn Curlewis disagreed, saying the state had a good chance of a successful appeal. ‘To prohibit a precedent being set, the SCA might be inclined to hand down a more severe sentence,’ he said.

Full report in The Herald (subscription needed) Part 1

Full report in The Herald (subscription needed) Part 2