Oscar Pistorius sentence: Athlete would be ill-advised to appeal
Sky's South African legal expert says the ruling against former Olympic athlete Oscar Pistorius is scathing but justified.
Monday 27 November 2017 19:58, UK
The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein, South Africa, today doubled Oscar Pistorius' murder sentence.
The runner has had his six-year sentence increased to 13 years and five months.
Appeals Court Judge Sereti called the original sentence "shockingly lenient to a point where it has the effect of trivialising this serious offence."
One of the key findings in its judgment is that the SCA found "it difficult on the evidence to accept that the respondent is genuinely remorseful."
Every possible legal issue and factual question dealing with murder cases literally played out over many months during the trial and consequent appeals.
The admitted evidence revealed various contradictions in the respondent's evidence as to why he shot at the toilet door that evening.
It suffices to state that these contradictions were so serious that the SCA previously remarked "in the light of these contradictions, one really does not know what his explanation is for having fired the shots".
The SCA was also of the view that the trial court over-emphasised the personal circumstances of Pistorius.
It ultimately concluded that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the imposition of the minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
As Pistorius already served some time by the time of the original sentence of six years, the SCA has given him some credit for that period of imprisonment.
In the final analysis I totally agree with the SCA result.
It gives clarity to the law, it complies with precedent and it is just and equitable in my view.
Pistorius would be ill-advised if he intends to appeal to the last available court, namely our Constitutional Court. But that possibility still exists.