Pistorious

Is it me but does the SA legal system look pretty different? No Jury trials, a bail hearing with so much evidence shared in the public domain (and general media coverage that would be seen here as completely prejudicial to a fair trial), a detective being investigated for attempted murder of seven people who can continue to work (ie is not suspended).

Mind you the jury in the Vicky Pryce case this week was not exactly an advert for that system. Had me really scratching my head that one!

For those that missed it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21521460

Bruce

Hi Bruce,  having fallen foul & also been grateful to the SA legal system in the misdemeanour & property law areas ......  Wikepeadia has a good read

SA law is based on openness to all the people,  its one of the pillar stones of the hybrid system taken from a mix of various European & African tribal laws.  The TV scenes may appear chaotic to Brits (& it is)  but being open to the people & seeking truth with all the facts out in public is the way it’s done. 

The SAP (police) are legendary for a number of things best not gone into & putting a cop with a pending shooting investigation in court as lead office is kinda indicative.   

BTW  -  it may get reported as "Attempted Murder" but that's the way it works - its an investigation into why he & the other 2 officers shot at a bush taxi (minibus)that failed to stop.

I briefly studied law in South Africa and in many ways it is, in principal, quite a good system - drawing from both Anglo and Dutch systems.

There is no jury and, as a result, evidence shared with the public can't be prejudicial as you are not tried by your peers but by the judge or judges who have heard the evidence anyway and reach a ruling based strictly on the rule of law and judicial precedent.

Thanks both, it is quite fascinating, and perhaps in some ways this free and public airing of the evidence is quite refreshing. i guess it relies on unimpeachable judiciary though.

In the UK any mention of previous convictions is forbidden to the jury. Same in RSA?

Bruce

Is there pressure coming from the government in the UK to do away with juries as a way to reduce expense, and clear the backlog of pending trials?

Or am I confusing reality with an old episode of Judge Deed?  :-)

Hook

A jury is simply 12 people too stupid to figure out how to get out of doing jury duty. I hope my fate is never in the hands of such a group of of untrained, inexperienced and often ignorant people. The sooner we do away with the notion the better.

But nobody seemed to get my joke...

Having just listened to the magistrate giving his judgement on the bail application I could clearly identifify with King Size points  ..........  evidence shared with the public can't be prejudicial as you are not tried by your peers but by the judge or judges who have heard the evidence anyway and reach a ruling based strictly on the rule of law and judicial precedent..........  This was clearly the way that the judgement summary was delivered

Bail has been granted BTW

It seems his bail conditions are quite reasonable - according to SA friends

Bail is set at 1m Rand (£74,000 ($113,000) as cash or sureties

Report to a police station between 07:00 and 13:00 every Monday and Friday.

Plus as expected to surrender his passport,  hand in all his firearms & avoid his home in Pretoria.

He has another hearing in June but the trial date TBA & will be many months away. 

Maybe this style of judicial openness is one reason the Truth and Reconciliation process appeared to be so succesful in SA?

I can't believe he's got bail given the circumstances. He's going to get off scot free eventually, probably on some technicality. It seemed odd to me that his girlfriends body was cremated within days of her death. I'll bet the defence will say it doesn't agree with the autopsy. What will they do then?

I've nothing against SA judicial system. In fact it has a lot going for it. I also agree with Winky's comments on the jury system. People today don't have the same sense of duty that they had in the old days and most do it begrudgingly. I have to admit I dread being called up. 

With enough money to bung in the necessary places and the very best legal representation available ....... 

I wonder.

John.

I listened to the whole statement live from 12:30 and thought the Judge very thorough and rational in his decision - Given the tennets of the law there defining the allowance or otherwise of bail.  G

Steve,  go read the judgement

Entirely fair, logical & reasonable IMO 

The BBC www news has a good summary rather than wade thru 2 hours of it

Why anyone who's killed another human being should be released on bail makes no sense at all.  Intentionally or not, he's got to serve time. So why should he get out at all, prior to the official hearing? A very strange concept to say the least and a smack in the face for her family. He's killed the woman for Christ's sake!?

don't worry he will be locked up

Whether anyone who kills someone else has "got to serve time" is, thankfully, a matter for the courts and not the mob. Similarly, whether someone gets bail is a matter for the courts.

It is not disputed that he killed "the woman" but how that happened is yet to be decided as has anyone's culpability in law.

I disagree. It's a clear cut case in the sense that no one disputes he's killed her. If that's the case, then he'll have to go to jail. Simple. So why should he be granted bail then? If it weren't clear, it'd be another matter but that's not the case. 

Without wanting to prejudge, it's highly unlikely that this was an accident. If you were lying in bed next to your wife and heard noises in the bathroom, wouldn't the first thing you'd do be to check next to you or even ask your wife whether she'd heard the noises too? Suppose you didn't and went to the bathroom with a gun in hand, wouldn't you shout to ask who's in the bathroom to get a response before pulling the trigger? His version is so odd, it's very hard to believe...

But you are prejudging? Perhaps you would like to tell us what sentence he deserves too? Why bother with a trial at all?

Definitely not. That way the burglar knows exactly where you are and will shoot you through the door. That would be the burglars only means of escape. You have to stay silent; you cannot shout to the girlfriend nor the burglar.

I am not. I am leaving judgement to the court. I'm merely stating my opinion.

What burglar would be stupid enough to lock himself into the bathroom? Not if he had a gun, he wouldn't! It's a trap with no way out. And yes, if I had a gun and suspected a burglar in our bathroom I would approach the bathroom sideways, so I couldn't get shot, and shout to find out whether someone was in there. I am outside he is inside, I'd take my chances and they would be better than his, miles better. Anyways, it's all theoretical. Bottom line, his story is so unreal, it's off the chart.

I would have thought the most appropriate action would be to hold him in a secure psychiatric hospital for mental health assessment.

Was he blood tested for alcohol, drugs, steroid abuse [testosterone]?

There are reports of him having a violent temper, has this been verified?

Why was he so insecure he needed to own six guns, at least one of them being a powerful assault rife with the capability of killing someone half a mile away?

He didn’t seem all there to me before this happened, now it’s just conformation of the fact he’s a man with serious issues.

Letting him out on bail is a huge mistake, he’s a dangerous man who could kill again.

Being a rich white bloke in the SA legal system obviously trumps a heinous act of domestic abuse.

Debs

One of the BBC newsreaders referred to the trial of Oscar Peterson, which I was unaware of. 

No need for a trial then.

In the course of my work I met Oscar Pistorius when he was a fairly young lad and just making a name for himself in paralympics.

I really struggle to relate the bright, good-natured and friendly young man I knew to the person he's portrayed to be by the media and the prosecutors in the South African court. A fair few years have passed since last we met and no doubt the pressures on him as a celebrity have altered him, but I do feel a great sense of regret to see him in such a dire mess.

I really don't think we should prejudge the outcome of the court case. We've really no idea what happened and as usual we're reading umpteen rumours, most of which have proved to be totally false. I know little about the South African legal system but I've no reason to doubt he'll receive a fair trial.