11:35

The state’s case

South Africa’s supreme court of appeal has heard arguments from state prosecutors that trial judge Thokozile Masipa was wrong when she found Oscar Pistorius not guilty of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp .



was wrong when she found not guilty of the murder of . Chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the panel of five judges that Masipa had erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that she was wrong to conclude that Pistorius had not foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it.

told the panel of five judges that Masipa had erred in her application of the legal principle of dolus eventualis, and that she was wrong to conclude that Pistorius had not foreseen that firing four shots into a locked door was likely to kill or injure the person behind it. Masipa further erred in her exclusion of dolus eventualis because she accepted that Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, Nel argued: there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle. (On this point, at least one judge openly agreed.)

The state further alleged that the trial judge was wrong to dismiss circumstantial evidence that it said proved the accused’s version of events to be impossible.

Nel argued that the supreme court was entitled to overturn the decision of the high court, because the finding that Pistorius was guilty of culpable homicide was a de facto acquittal on the charge of murder.

Neither state nor the defence “has the stomach” for a retrial, Nel said, as he asked the appeal court to instead impose its own verdict of murder:

He had defences that exclude each other … The one he elected to use, the court rejected that one and gave him another one.

The court should have rejected his evidence as impossible … On the objective facts, the accused cannot escape a verdict of murder.

Advocate Gerrie Nel at the supreme court of appeal. Photograph: REX Shutterstock

The defence case

Barry Roux, for the defence, said the state’s case rested on issues of fact, rather than points of law, and were therefore not a matter for the supreme court.

But he faced questioning from the judges over Pistorius’ intentions when firing into the tiny cubicle, with Judge Leach telling him:

There was no place to hide in there … If you put four shots through that door you must surely see you will shoot someone.

Roux maintained that the trial judge was correct to apply the principle of dolus eventualis to the question of whether Steenkamp was in the cubicle, given that the judge had already accepted that Pistorius genuinely believed there was an intruder in the bathroom, and that his girlfriend was still in bed:



Why would he just want to murder someone in the toilet, knowing she’s in the bedroom?



The defence insists that Pistorius was scared, vulnerable and on his stumps; his state of mind rules out murder.

Judge Lex Mpati, president of the supreme court of appeal. Photograph: Siphiwe Sibeko/AFP/Getty Images

What happens next?

The appeal court has reserved its judgment; it has not given a date for this to be revealed.

The ruling will rely on a majority decision among the five judges, several of whom argued today that the bench was indeed entitled to impose its own verdict (rather than simply order a retrial) should it accept the state’s argument.

The judges could reject the state’s appeal, order a retrial (although there was no appetite for that expressed by any side today), or substitute a new verdict.

If the appeal court decides to impose a guilty verdict on the murder charge, the case would return to the high court for a fresh sentence.

Oscar Pistorius remains under house arrest at his uncle’s house in Pretoria.