Pistorius sentence anything but lenient
Oscar Pistorius’ legal team has filed papers in the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) in response to the state’s application – to be heard next Friday (26 August) – for leave to appeal the six-year jail sentence the athlete received for murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. The application by prosecutor Gerrie Nel claimed Judge Thokozile Masipa handed down a shockingly lenient sentence, but Pistorius’ lawyers contend that there is no prospect of another court increasing the sentence.
In their papers they claim the state had no regard for the fact that Pistorius had already spent 12 months in jail when he was previously convicted of culpable homicide, notes a Pretoria News report. The Pistorius defence team also pointed out that the paralympian was under correctional supervision for seven months after his release. And, pending his resentencing, this time for murder, he was placed under even stricter bail conditions, which included house arrest.
The defence said although the judge took this into account, it appears that the state has ‘conveniently’ omitted considering these facts. ‘It must be borne in mind that correctional supervision is a form of detention.’ The papers adds: ‘If regard is had to the fact that subject to good behaviour an accused would usually be released on parole after serving about 60% of his sentence, the previous sentence period served, as well as the correctional supervision, constitute about a two year effective imprisonment sentence already, served by the accused.’
The defence is of the opinion that this makes the present sentence an effective eight-year-sentence, which it said was 'anything but lenient'.
It is also claimed the state's appeal ignored the fact that it was the trial court's prerogative to impose a sentence, according to a TimesLIVE report. ‘An appeal court will not interfere with such discretion unless the trial court failed to exercise its discretionary function judicially,’ his lawyers contend. They also accused the state of ignoring and misconstruing facts, and of insulting the trial court by claiming that it had misdirected itself.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
