
Oscar Pistorius was convicted last year on a charge of culpable homicide for the negligent killing of his fiancé Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day 2013. Parts of Pistorius’s allegations were, that he thought she was an intruder and led evidence to that effect. Pistorius was sentenced to five years by High Court Judge Thokozile Masipa, in terms of s 106(4) as read with s 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act NO 51 of 1977 (“the Act”), an accused is entitled to demand that he should be acquitted or convicted. Pistorius was sentenced under section 276(1)(i) of the Act. The sentence and its rationale sparked robust debate among legal academia in South Africa especially through, inter alia the assessment of the dolus eventualis principle. The trial was aired at law schools around the country, and watched closely by the public, showing vested public interest.
Pistorius’s Parole
Pistorius was supposed to have been released from prison on 21 August, to effectively serve remainder of his sentence under house arrest, however prior to his release Justice Minister Michael Masutha announced that the former Paralympic athlete would in fact not be released. According to an ‘ENCA’ article, the Minister reportedly stated that the parole board had acted prematurely in coming to the decision to parole Pistorius.
Reasons for current Parole decision
Women’s rights group, the ‘Progressive Women’s Movement’ reportedly asked the Minister for Oscar not to be released during women’s month.
Parole Review Board
Decisions at law may be reviewed, this is a fundamental tenet of the law in South Africa. Concept of judicial review within a constitutional legal system was first introduced in the well-known case of Marbury v Madison and was later embedded in South African law (Criminal Procedure Handbook). The Act makes provision for procedures and related matters in criminal proceedings is applicable in this matter. Pistorius’s legal team has argued that the delays to his parole matter have been unconstitutional. In an opinion article published 19 August 2015 by Kelly Phelps on the ‘ENCA’ site, it is stated that “few sentences issued are served out in their entirety, this is standard criminal justice practice globally and not just in South Africa.” Parole after serving a ‘short’ time, therefore isn’t a novel concept, on link below author expands on precedent and case law to this effect
Way forward
Pistorius’s legal team are pursuing action over the parole decision at the Pretoria High Court. In the meanwhile, the state is set to have their appeal in November, they’ve indicated that they would rather have Pistorius convicted of murder, the unlawful intentional killing of another in contrast to culpable homicide for the death of Reeva Steenkamp. This case will evidently be closely watched as it continues.
*Kelly Phelps senior lecturer in Criminal Justice at the University of Cape Town
*Criminal Procedure Handbook 10th Edition, Geldenhuys et al 2011

