Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius (96/2015) [2015] ZASCA 204; [2016] 1 All SA 346 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 317 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 431 (SCA) (3 December 2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius (96/2015) [2015] ZASCA 204; [2016] 1 All SA 346 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 317 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 431 (SCA) (3 December 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misapplied the principles of dolus eventualis by focusing on whether the accused foresaw that the deceased specifically was behind the door, rather than whether he foresaw that any person could be killed by his actions. The trial court also erred by failing to consider crucial circumstantial evidence, including forensic testimony regarding the confined space and the nature of the ammunition used, which made it inevitable that anyone behind the door would be struck and likely killed. The accused's incorrect belief about the identity of the person behind the door was irrelevant to the presence of criminal intent. The court held that the...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 204
Parties
Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng; Respondent: Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2015
Case Number
96/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Questions of Law Reserved Under S 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence for culpable homicide set aside and replaced with conviction for murder. Matter remitted to trial court for sentencing.
Judges
Mpati, Mhlantla, Leach, Majiedt, Baartman
Legal Topics
Dolus Eventualis, Error in Objecto, Circumstantial Evidence, Putative Self Defence, Criminal Intent, Competent Verdict
Criminal Law Dolus Eventualis Error in Objecto Circumstantial Evidence Putative Self Defence Criminal Intent Competent Verdict

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng

Appellant

Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal on Questions of Law Reserved Under S 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court correctly applied the principles of dolus eventualis to the accepted facts and conduct of the accused, including error in objecto.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly conceived and applied the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence and/or multiple defences by an accused.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court was correct in its construction and reliance on an alternative version of the accused and that this alternative version was reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court misapplied the principles of dolus eventualis by focusing on whether the accused foresaw that the deceased specifically was behind the door, rather than whether he foresaw that any person could be killed by his actions. The trial court also erred by failing to consider crucial circumstantial evidence, including forensic testimony regarding the confined space and the nature of the ammunition used, which made it inevitable that anyone behind the door would be struck and likely killed. The accused's incorrect belief about the identity of the person behind the door was irrelevant to the presence of criminal intent. The court held that the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence for culpable homicide set aside and replaced with conviction for murder. Matter remitted to trial court for sentencing.

Orders

  • The first two questions of law reserved are answered in favour of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
  • The accused’s conviction and sentence on count 1 are set aside and replaced with a conviction of murder with criminal intent in the form of dolus eventualis.