'How can you shoot four bullets through a door and not foresee their death?' Experts question Pistorius ruling as he awaits today's manslaughter verdict

Paralympian breaks down in the dock as the judge delivers her verdicts

Judge Thokozile Masipa earlier threw out charge of pre-meditated murder

She also found him not guilty of 'dolus eventualis' - which holds you responsible for foreseeable consequences of your actions

Law professor Stephen Tuson said state would arguably be able to appeal on dolus eventualis, which is also known as common murder



Judge Masipa has yet to decide on a lesser charge of culpable homicide

But she described the amputee as 'negligent' when he fired the fatal shots



Athlete had been accused of deliberately shooting model at his home



He said he shot her in self-defence after mistaking her for an intruder

Legal experts said the state could question a ruling by the South African judge in the case of Oscar Pistorius, who was sensationally cleared yesterday of murdering his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.



As well as finding the Paralympian not guilty of premeditated murder, Judge Thokozile Masipa also absolved Pistorius, 27, of a lesser murder charge that requires a different concept of intention - known by the legal term 'dolus eventualis' - which holds you responsible for the foreseeable consequences of your actions.



Earlier, the defence said the double amputee shot the 30-year-old model as a result of a tragic accident after mistaking her for an intruder hiding behind a locked toilet door.



'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,' said Masipa.



But Stephen Tuson, a law professor at Johannesburg's University of Witwatersrand, said the state would arguably be able to appeal on dolus eventualis (which is Latin for 'indirect intent').



'How can you shoot four bullets through a door and not foresee their death?', he told Bloomberg News.

Scroll down for video

Tears of relief and distress: Oscar Pistorius weeps in the dock as he is cleared of both murder charges over the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year

'Arguably, there’s a possibility of an appeal by the state if they believe that she [Masipa] erred on a question of law.'



However, the practising criminal barrister added: 'I think the verdict on premeditated murder is acceptable and well reasoned and not a surprise.'



Meanwhile, Professor James Grant, of the same university, said: 'The problem is that Masipa has found that he did not intend to kill. But that is not the question and it was not his defence,' he told The Citizen.

Distraught: Pistorius had been accused of deliberately shooting the 30-year-old model during a furious row at his Pretoria home on Valentine's Day last year

'It seems as if she arrived at the conclusion by making a mistake of law relating to whether it matters who was behind the door.'



Prof Grant added that it did not matter who was behind the door but that Pistorius shot at the door with intention.



While premeditated murder carries a minimum jail term of 25 years, dolus eventualis - also known as common murder - can lead to a maximum sentence of 20 years.



Pistorius now faces a troubled night after Masipa adjourned for the day before ruling on a charge of culpable homicide, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years.



He had been accused of deliberately shooting his girlfriend during a furious row at his Pretoria home on Valentine's Day last year.



But he had always maintained - often through wails of despair and vomiting - that he shot the law graduate in self-defence after mistaking her for an intruder.

Judge Masipa went on to address a lesser charge of culpable homicide - similar to manslaughter - saying the runner had been 'negligent' when he fired the fatal shots.

She told the court that Pistorius had acted 'hastily' and with 'too much force' but in a moment of high drama abruptly adjourned proceedings for the day before reaching a verdict.

The Paralympian sat sobbing in the dock with tears streaming down his cheeks a s the judge delivered her not guilty verdicts for murder and pre-meditated murder. Fate hangs in the balance: Oscar Pistorius stands in the dock next to a towel and bucket in case he vomits again - as he did regularly throughout his trial - as the judge enters court to deliver her verdict in the case Delivering her verdict this afternoon, judge Masipa criticised Pistorius's decision to reach for his 9mm pistol and fire it through the toilet cubicle rather than raise the alarm or fire a warning shot.

She said: 'There were other means available to you to deal with threats to life. 'All the accused had to do was pick up his cell phone and ring security or run to the balcony and call for help. RELATED ARTICLES Previous

1

2

Next An angry young man who battled adversity to become South... A beautiful model with a law degree and a blossoming career...

'I'm convinced Oscar Pistorius is innocent - it was a tragic... Share this article Share 'Many people in this country have experienced crime or the effects thereof, directly or indirectly at some time or another. 'Many have been victims of violent crime but have not resorted to sleeping with firearms under their pillows. 'If the accused, for example, had awoken in the middle of the night and in darkness seen a silhouette by his bed and in a panic shot at that figure, only to find it was the deceased, his conduct would have been understandable and perhaps excusable. 'In such a situation he would not have been expected to call security first as he would be faced with a real emergency.'

Tense: Oscar Pistorius listens in from the dock as the judge begins delivering her verdict in his murder trial Braced for another tough day: Pistorius sits on towel in the dock with bottles of water to hand She added: 'The accused had reasonable time to think, reflect and conduct himself. 'I'm not persuaded that a reasonable person with the same disability would have fired the four shots. 'The accused knew there was a person behind the toilet door, he chose to use a firearm. 'Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die as a result? 'Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have guarded against that possibility? The answer to both questions is yes. 'Did the accused fail to take steps which he should have reasonably taken to guard against the consequence? Again the answer is yes. 'I am of the view the accused acted too hastily and used too much force. It is clear his conduct is negligent.'

In coming to her decision on the murder charges, Judge Masipa earlier described the 27-year-old as a 'very poor' and 'evasive' witness. Pistorius's father Henke Pistorius kisses the hand of his daughter Aimee as the verdicts were handed down MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION WOULD TRIGGER A 'SECOND TRIAL' If Oscar Pistorius is convicted of culpable homicide, prosecutors and Pistorius's defense lawyers will have the chance to present witnesses in a separate sentencing hearing before Masipa decides if and how long Pistorius goes to prison. In what amounts to a second trial, prosecutors could call members of Miss Steenkamp's family, maybe her mother and father, to testify for sentencing. Defense lawyers might call psychiatrists to argue for a lighter sentence. Culpable homicide carries a term of five years if a gun is used, but this can be increased or decreased depending on circumstances. For example, the fact that Pistorius fired multiple times into a small space and didn't fire a warning shot first could count against him. The three unrelated firearm charges Pistorius faces usually carry fines or suspended sentences on conviction.

But she said that did not mean the track star was necessarily guilty of the murder charges in a case she said was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. ' The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of pre-meditated murder,' Masipa told the Pretoria High Court. RELATED ARTICLES Previous

1

2

Next An angry young man who battled adversity to become South... A beautiful model with a law degree and a blossoming career...

'I'm convinced Oscar Pistorius is innocent - it was a tragic... Share this article Share 'There are just not enough facts to support such a finding.' She then proceeded to absolve Pistorius of the lesser charge of murder without pre-planning . 'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door - let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom,' she told the packed courtroom. The judge said she believed accounts an emotional Pistorius gave to police at the scene in the moments after the shooting. She said: 'Counsel for the defence correctly argued that it was highly improbable that the accused would have made this up so quickly and be consistent in his version, even at the bail application, before he had access to the police docket and before he was privy to the evidence on behalf of the state at the bail application. 'The question is, did the accused foresee the possibility of the resultant death, yet persisted in his deed reckless of whether death ensured or not? 'In the circumstances of this case, the answer has to be no. 'How could the accused reasonably have foreseen that the shot he fired would kill the deceased?

'Clearly he did not subjectively foresee this as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the door, let alone the deceased - as he thought she was in the bedroom at the time.'

Judge Masipa has yet to decide on a lesser charge of culpable homicide - similar to manslaughter. Strain: Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June (right), sits in the public gallery ahead of the verdict THE PROSECUTION'S CASE...

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel took 15 days to lay out his case against Pistorius back in March, arguing he deliberately killed Miss Steenkamp by firing four rounds from a 9mm pistol through a closed toilet door. A key part of the prosecution's case was its assertion that Miss Steenkamp screamed during a late-night alleged fight with Pistorius before he killed her. He called several neighbours who testified to hearing a woman's terrified screams before a volley of shots to counter Pistorius's assertions that he mistook Miss Steenkamp for a burglar. Mr Nel atore into the athlete's personality to bolster his argument, painting him as an egotistical liar obsessed with guns, fast cars and beautiful women. In his summing up last month, he cut through months of complex evidence and testimony by saying: 'His intention was to kill a human being.' ... AND THE CASE OF THE DEFENCE

His defence team said there are 'two Oscars' - a world-class athlete and a highly vulnerable individual with a serious disability who acted out of fear, not anger, when he fired the fatal shots. Defence lawyer Barry Roux said psychological evidence had proven the track star had a heightened fight response as a result of his disability.

'You're standing at that door. You're vulnerable. You're anxious. You're trained as an athlete to react. 'Take all those factors into account,' Roux said, adding that Pistorius had felt exposed because he was standing on the stumps of his legs. 'He stands with his finger on the trigger, ready to fire when ready. 'In some instances a person will fire reflexively,' he added.

'That is your primal instinct.' Agonising wait: Pistorius leaves the high court in Pretoria after judge adjourned for day before delivering her final verdict on a manslaughter charge Acquitted: The judge described the 27-year-old as a 'very poor' and 'evasive' witness, but said that did not mean the track star was necessarily guilty of the murder charges Prosecutor Gerrie Nel had used them in an attempt to bolster his claim that the athlete shot his girlfriend in a fit of rage. But the judge said that inference could not be made, adding: 'Nothing of this proves anything at all.'

She added: 'Neither the evidence of the loving relationship or a relationship turned sour can assist this court to determine whether the accused had the requisite intention to kill the deceased.'

She also said there was 'some doubt' that a woman screamed on the night because of contradictory witness testimony, which she believed had been contaminated by media reports. This apparently acknowledged the possibility that the defense argument that it was, in fact, Pistorius who had been screaming in a high-pitched voice.

However, she also cast doubt on the evidence of some defence witnesses. And she said Pistorius himself in his evidence showed 'a number of defences, or apparent defences'. Worldwide attention: Pistorius was surrounded by a ring of bodyguards and police who escorted him through a scrum of reporters, supporters and television cameras as he arrived at court In the spotlight: The verdict comes after a six-month trial that has captivated a global audience At the start of the hearing, Pistorius appeared tense with a sick bucket by his side in the dock as Judge Masipa called Pretoria's High Court to order.

Early in her summary of the case, she dismissed a series of heated text messages between the couple which the prosecution claimed was evidence they were in a volatile relationship. After reading a list of contradictory statements in Pistorius's testimony, she said one assertion 'is inconsistent with someone who shot without thinking'.

Pistorius wept in the dock as the judge described the injuries he inflicted on Miss Steenkamp when he shot her four times through a locked toilet door. He arrived at the courthouse at 8am in a dark suit and white shirt, surrounded by bodyguards and police who escorted him through a scrum of reporters, supporters and television cameras. He appeared calm, staring straight ahead and making no comment. Shortly after, his estranged father Henke arrived, putting in only his second appearance at the trial that has captivated a global audience for the last six months.

'I'm just here to support him,' Henke told reporters. Media scrum: The Paralympian is engulfed by scores of reporters and supporters as his car outside court Judgement day: Oscar Pistorius arrives at court in Pretoria for the long-awaited verdict in his murder trial over the Valentine's Day shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp

The athlete's brother, Carl Pistorius, arrived at the courthouse in a wheelchair with both his legs in splints in his first appearance since being seriously injured in a car crash earlier this year.

In a fitting reminder of how South Africa has changed in the 20 years since apartheid, the fate of Pistorius, a wealthy white man from privileged roots, rests in the hands of a 66-year-old black woman from Soweto. Judge Masipa, only the second black woman to be appointed a high court judge in post-apartheid South Africa, analysed more than 4,000 pages of evidence before reaching her decision. In arriving at her verdicts, Judge Thokozile Masipa had to weigh Pistorius's claim that he shot Miss Steenkamp after mistaking her for an intruder and the prosecution's allegation that the runner intentionally murdered her after a row. Moral support: The athlete's brother Carl Pistorius arrives at court in a wheelchair with both his legs in splints after being seriously injured in a car crash earlier this year The Paralympian's estranged father, Henke, arrives at court for only his second appearance at the trial Reeva Steenkamp's mother, June (second right) and father Barry (right) arrive at the High Court in Pretoria Barry Steenkamp had previously been too ill to attend the trial until recently after suffering a heart attack

After all the verdicts are delivered, there are likely to be arguments if and when sentence is handed down and, most likely, an appeal to a higher court.

Pistorius denied all the charges, including three other firearm-related counts.

Prosecutor Gerrie Nel took 15 days to lay out his case against the 27-year-old back in March, arguing he deliberately killed Miss Steenkamp by firing four rounds from a 9mm pistol through a closed toilet door.

The personality of the Paralympian gold medallist, who won worldwide fame when he competed on his prosthetic 'blades' against able-bodied runners at the London Olympics, was a focus of the trial.

Prosecutors described him as an egotistical liar obsessed with guns, fast cars and beautiful women, who was not prepared to take responsibility for his actions.

Several neighbours testified to hearing a woman's terrified screams before a volley of shots, countering Pistorius's assertions that he mistook Miss Steenkamp for a burglar.

Despair: The eyes of the world have been on the six-month-long trial which has been Pistorius vomit, retch and break down in tears on several occasions in court

Cutting through months of complex evidence and testimony, Mr Nel ended proceedings last month by returning to his core argument.

'He knew there was a human being in the toilet. That's his evidence,' Mr Nel told the judge.

'His intention was to kill a human being. He's fired indiscriminately into that toilet. Then m'lady, he is guilty of murder. There must be consequences.'

Defence lawyers, meanwhile, said there are 'two Oscars' - a world-class athlete and a highly vulnerable individual with a serious disability who acted out of fear, not anger, when he fired the fatal shots.

Defence lawyer Barry Roux said during his own wrapping-up that psychological evidence had proven the track star had a heightened fight response because of his disability and was in a terrified and vulnerable state when he shot Steenkamp.

'You're standing at that door. You're vulnerable. You're anxious. You're trained as an athlete to react.

'Take all those factors into account,' Roux said, adding that Pistorius had felt exposed because he was standing on the stumps of his legs.

'He stands with his finger on the trigger, ready to fire when ready.

'In some instances a person will fire reflexively,' he added. 'That is your primal instinct.'

Mr Nel responded to claims that that the athlete suffered from an anxiety disorder by insisting that Pistorius undergo psychiatric tests to establish if he was mentally well enough to stand trial.

But, after a court-ordered 30-day assessment, experts ruled that he was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of his actions when he fired the fatal shots.

Mr Roux also argued that prosecutors had only called witnesses who supported their argument and not other key people, including police officers, who he said would have undermined their case.



The case also involved physical as well as oral evidence, with one forensic analyst demonstrating in court how Pistorius may have hit the toilet door with a cricket bat.

Scene of horror: This photograph shows the blood-soaked bathroom where Oscar Pistorius shot his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp in the toilet cubicle (top) with his 9mm pistol (seen lying on a bathmat, right) and the blood-splattered cricket bat (bottom right) he used to break down the toilet door after killing her Grim: Another graphic image shows a pool of blood at the bottom of the staircase where Pistorius carried Miss Steenkamp after shooting her. Blue arrows point to specks of blood on the wall and floor Another key element of the case was the time of Ms Steenkamp's final meal. Pistorius said they ate at around 7pm on the night she was killed, and went to bed at around 10pm before the shooting in the early hours of the morning.

But the prosecution alleged that a finding that she still had food in her stomach after she was killed contradicted that story.

Both sides used texts sent by the couple to support their case.

In one read out by police captain Francois Moller, Ms Steenkamp said: 'I'm scared of u sometimes and how u snap at me and of how u will react to me.'

But the defence claimed such messages were only a fraction of the total taken from the couple's mobile phones by police, and produced others in which they were affectionate.

Crucial evidence: Judge Thokozile Masipa examines the bullet-riddled toilet door up close during expert forensics evidence being given at the Oscar Pistorius murder trial The fatal shots: Four holes are seen on the toilet door from bullets fired by Pistorius, three of which hit Miss Steenkamp - in the arm, head and hip For example, in January Steenkamp sent Pistorius a photo of herself in a hoodie with the message: 'You like it?' He replied: 'I love it.' The trial's tensest and most dramatic moments came in several days of highly charged testimony from Pistorius. His voice thick with emotion, the athlete began his evidence by saying sorry to Ms Steenkamp's family. Watched by the model's mother June, he said: 'I was simply trying to protect Reeva. I can promise that when she went to bed that night she felt loved.

Mrs Steenkamp later told Hello! Magazine she has forgiven him. 'I don't hate Oscar,' she said.

Aftermath of the killing: This picture of Oscar Pistorius, bare-chested and covered in blood from the waist down, was taken by police shortly after the Paralympian shot Reeva Steenkamp at his home

Glamorous couple: Oscar Pistorius with Reeva Steenkamp at the Feather Awards in Johannesburg, South Africa, in November 2012, three months before he killed her Pistorius went on to describe how he had suffered from nightmares and sleeplessness following the incident, while also recounting the impact on him of previous instances of crime. Later in his testimony, the court had to adjourn as Pistorius broke down sobbing and howling while describing the aftermath of the shooting.'I sat over Reeva and I cried,' he said. Pistorius was on the stand for five days of intense cross-examination from Mr Nel.

At one point he refused to look at a photograph of Ms Steenkamp's wounds as the prosecutor urged him to 'take responsibility'.

In July, the star's spokeswoman confirmed he got into a row about the trial while out in a nightclub, while in August his older brother Carl Pistorius was left in intensive care after a car crash.

In a tweet on August 8, Oscar Pistorius wrote: 'Thank you to my loved ones and those that have been there for me, who have picked me up and helped me through everything.'



'BLOOD-CURDLING' SCREAMS, TRAILS OF BLOOD AND VOMITING ON THE STAND: A TIMELINE OF ONE OF THE MOST DRAMATIC TRIALS IN HISTORY

March 3 - Oscar Pistorius pleads not guilty in court to murder and three gun charges.

Later, neighbour Michelle Burger, the first witness called by the prosecution, tells the court she heard 'blood-curdling' screams before the sound of four gunshots on the night the Olympian killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp. March 5 - Prosecutor Gerrie Nel says neighbour Charl Johnson received texts and calls after his telephone number was read out in court the previous day.

He described one voicemail message as saying: 'Why are you lying in court? You know Oscar didn't kill Reeva. It's not cool.' March 10 - Pistorius vomits repeatedly in the dock as he hears graphic details of the injuries sustained by the girlfriend he fatally shot. March 11 - A witness describes how a 'furious' Pistorius fired a gun out of a car sunroof after being pulled over by police for speeding. March 12 - Part of the crime scene is reconstructed in court as a forensic analyst demonstrates how Pistorius may have bashed a cricket bat on the door of his toilet to get to the girlfriend he had just fatally shot. March 13 - Photographs of Pistorius's bloodstained prosthetics, the alleged murder weapon and of the crime scene are shown. March 17 - The manager of a South African gun training academy says the athlete had 'a great love and enthusiasm' for firearms. March 19 - A police ballistics expert claims Ms Steenkamp was standing in a toilet cubicle and facing the closed door when she was hit in the right hip by the first of four bullets fired by Pistorius. March 24 - Text messages between Pistorius and Ms Steenkamp are read to the court.

In them she states she was sometimes scared of him and complained about what she described as his short temper and jealousy in the weeks before he killed her. March 25 - The following day, defence lawyer Barry Roux notes that the messages were a tiny fraction of roughly 1,700 that police Captain Francois Moller, a mobile phone expert, extracted from the couples' devices.

Later that day, and in a rare comment, Pistorius says he is going through 'a tough time' as the prosecution case closes March 28 - Judge Masipa delays proceedings until April 7 due to illness. April 7 - The defence case opens. In a break from tradition, owing to illness, a pathologist is called as its first witness rather than the defendant.

When he takes to the stand later, an emotional Pistorius begins with an apology to Ms Steenkamp's family.

He says: 'There hasn't been a moment since this tragedy happened that I haven't thought about your family.' April 8 - Pistorius breaks down in tears and howls while describing how he shot girlfriend Ms Steenkamp, forcing the court to adjourn. April 9 - Giving evidence for a third day, Pistorius tells how his girlfriend 'died while I was holding her', describing how he put his fingers in her mouth to try to help her breathe and put his hand on her hip to try to stop bleeding from one of several gunshot wounds. April 9 - Mr Nel begins cross-examination, showing a photograph of Ms Steenkamp's bloodied head. He tells the defendant: 'It's time that you look at it.' April 11 - Pistorius's first week giving evidence ends with a dramatic exchange between Pistorius and Mr Nel about the moments before the shots were fired. April 14 - There is another adjournment in court as the Olympian breaks down again while giving evidence. April 15 - Re-examined by his own counsel, Pistorius recalls how he was 'terrified' that the person in the bathroom was an intruder.

'I feared for my life. I was just scared,' he says. 'I was thinking about what could happen to me, to Reeva. I was just extremely fearful.' April 16 - Judge Masipa announces the trial will adjourn until May 5, following a request for a break from Mr Nel. May 5 - Upon resumption, Pistorius's neighbour, Johan Stander, describes how he received an urgent call to help following the incident.

He says: 'He (Pistorius) said on the call, 'Johan, please, please, please come to my house. Please. I shot Reeva. I thought she was an intruder. Please come quick'. May 8 - A social worker who visited Pistorius in the aftermath of the killing describes the murder suspect as 'heartbroken'.

Yvette van Schalkwyk, who says she decided to give evidence at the trial because she was upset by suggestions reported in the media that Pistorius was feigning grief to sway the judge in his favour, adds: 'He cried 80% of the time.

'He talked to me about what they planned for the future, his future with her.' May 9 - A ballistics expert says his analysis of the scene where the Olympic athlete shot Ms Steenkamp differs from the reconstruction of the shooting by police investigators. May 12 - Mr Nel says the athlete should be placed under psychiatric observation after an expert called by the defence said Pistorius has an anxiety disorder. May 14 - The much-delayed trial receives another set back, as the judge orders the athlete to undergo psychiatric tests.

The case is delayed until until June 30 while he is observed as an outpatient at Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital. May 26 - Pistorius arrives at the hospital for the first day of psychiatric tests. June 30 - After a month-long break, the murder trial resumes when mental health experts state Pistorius was not suffering from a mental illness when he killed girlfriend Ms Steenkamp. July 2 - Mr Roux reads a psychologist's report which concludes Pistorius is severely traumatised and will become an increasing suicide risk unless he continues to get mental health care. July 7 - Mr Nel challenges the credibility of a doctor who testifies that the athlete has an anxious nature linked to his disability. July 8 - The defence team closes its case and the trial is adjourned. August 7 - After a lengthy adjournment, closing arguments begin. August 8 - Judge Masipa announces she will deliver her verdict on September 11.

Lawyers fear Pistorius's acquittal of murder could make it easier for men to kill partners and escape justice

By JANE FLANAGAN IN PRETORIA FOR DAILY MAIL



Oscar Pistorius was dramatically cleared of the murder of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp yesterday, prompting widespread disbelief across his native South Africa.

Even though the Paralympic sprint champion will almost certainly be convicted of culpable homicide – or manslaughter – when the final verdict is given today, Judge Thokozile Masipa’s findings so far are seen as a victory for the Blade Runner and his defence team.

A manslaughter conviction means Pistorius could spend up to 15 years in prison, or walk free on a suspended sentence. An outright acquittal seems unlikely, after the judge said yesterday a conviction for culpable homicide was a ‘competent verdict’.

The fact the decision to find Pistorius not guilty of murder was reached by a black female judge, who has been outspoken about violence against women and handed down hefty sentences for such crimes, has added to the shock in South Africa.

More than 1,000 South African women die every year at the hands of their lovers – ‘intimate femicide’ is the country’s most common cause of female deaths.



Last night, top lawyers expressed fears that Pistorius’s acquittal of murder could make it easier for men to kill their partners and escape justice.

And the fact that the Paralympian is part of South Africa’s white elite, with the means and fame to fund the best defence money could buy, is being cited as a key factor in his acquittal of murder.

The case of a black hip-hop star known as Jub Jub who was convicted for murder two years ago after killing four children in a car crash, while under the influence of drugs, was last night cited as an example of how unevenly South Africa’s legal system treats its black and white citizens.



Ironically, the judge who ruled in favour of the controversial live televising of the trial said he wanted sceptical black South Africans to see for themselves how everyone was equal under their country’s laws.

Meanwhile, prosecutor Gerrie Nel – who had mauled Pistorius so viciously as he struggled in the witness box – was last night said to be waiting for Judge Masipa to hand down her final verdicts, before considering an appeal on her interpretation of the law.

But South Africa’s leading legal experts did not hold back on criticising the judge for leniency. ‘I’m shocked,’ criminal lawyer Martin Hood said. ‘I think she’s going to get quite a lot of criticism from the judiciary and the legal system.