Oscar 'has a case to answer

"What is on trial is Pistorius's state of mind at the moment when he pulled the trigger." File photo
Image by: SIPHIWE SIBEKO / REUTERS

The state has proved enough for Oscar Pistorius to have to explain his actions on the night he killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, legal experts say.

Tomorrow, Pistorius is expected to testify as to why he fired four shots at a locked toilet door in his luxury Silver Woods Estate home, near Pretoria.

His defence is that he opened fire, in the early hours of Valentine's Day last year, after mistaking Steenkamp for an intruder.

The state has closed its case.

Professor James Grant, of the Wits School of Law, said: "The evidence I think has been enough to put Pistorius in a position where he needs to do some explaining because of the cumulative effect of the evidence led.

"The court will consider what are the chances of the neighbours [who testified] all being wrong."

Llewelyn Curlewis, president of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces, said that if the defence chose not to ask for an acquittal, that could imply that it agreed that there was at least a prima facie case to contest.

Grant said the evidence of the state's ballistics expert was fairly forceful, "especially relating to the order in which Steenkamp was most likely struck by the bullets".

"In my opinion, there is at the very least a case to be answered."

Grant said the defence would want to keep Pistorius on the stand for as short a time as possible, "but they are not in control of that".

"Once on the stand, he is open to cross-examination by prosecutor Gerrie Nel, who will take his time.

"What is on trial is Pistorius's state of mind at the moment when he pulled the trigger."

Grant said the defence "might try the strategy of calling a psychologist to testify on the vulnerability of disabled people and, because of his vulnerability, he made the mistake he made ...".

Grant said the difference between murder and culpable homicide was that the murder charge was judged subjectively, "which is why it is all-important as to what he was thinking".

"Culpable homicide, which is a competent verdict on a charge of murder, is judged objectively.

"The test is what a reasonable person in the 'external immediate circumstances of the accused' would have thought and done.

"To date, our law has never taken account of the disabilities of an accused to lower that standard. It would be unprecedented for a court to take account of any expert testimony to lower that standard."

He said that Pistorius's position could be harmed if "the courts raise the standards, in particular when we are talking about conduct that requires a special skill or knowledge, such as the handling of a firearm".

"His conduct [if the court were to consider a verdict of culpable homicide] would be compared to that of a reasonable firearms owner, someone in our society who has passed the tests and knows the law."