S v Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius

Introduction

S v Pistorius is a legal matter between the State and the accused, Oscar Leonard Carl Pistorius. Since the State is directly involved in this matter, this case is under the area of criminal law. It is a great precedent that legal practitioners and students can look up to when they are researching the distinction between murder and culpable homicide. The accused is a well-known athlete, who was a role model to others because of his capability and talent for running using prostheses since he was born with disability to walk. The court proved that fame and law cannot be blended. It doesn’t matter who you are, but justice must be served. Public attention was strict in this case, and justice was served without favouritism. This is the case where the difference between murder and culpable homicide was raised. It contributed significantly to the development of South African law.

Facts of the Case

The accused was with his girlfriend in his home on 13 February 2013. During the early hours of 14 February 2013, he shot his girlfriend four times. His neighbors, state witnesses, declared that they heard screams of a woman and multiple gunshots. The accused said that he did not murder the deceased intentionally. He said that he heard noise in the bathroom when he was sleeping in his bedroom, then he woke up because he felt vulnerable. Since the lights were off and he was in darkness, he took his gun and went down the passage to the bathroom that was locked. He said that he believed that there was an intruder who entered through the open window of the bathroom. He shot multiple times through the door of the bathroom. When he tried to open the bathroom door, it was locked. He rushed to the bedroom to take a cricket bat to use to open the bathroom door. He used the cricket bat to open the door, only to find out that he had shot his girlfriend.

Based on the evidence provided in court, the accused tried to call the security and 911 after the gunshots. He even tried to call his friend. One of the state witnesses testified that he heard the accused, after the gunshots, shouting for help. One of the witnesses who rushed to the accused’s home testified that the accused was crying, asking for help from him and God. The witness who ran the post-mortem examination testified that the wounds inflicted on the deceased caused serious injuries. The State looked at his criminal capacity to prove the charges against him. The doctor who examined the accused gave evidence that the accused suffered from General Anxiety Disorder. Three psychologists were appointed to examine him, and their evidence had the same point. It was proved that during the incident, the accused could appreciate the wrongfulness of his act, meaning he could distinguish between right and wrong.

Legal Issues

Issue 1: Whether the accused murdered the deceased intentionally and with premeditation or negligently?

Issue 2: Whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that if he fired at the door, whoever was behind the door might be struck by a bullet and die as a result?

Issue 3: Whether a reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against the possibility of the incident?

Arguments Presented

5.1 The State’s Arguments

• The State contends that the accused violated the law by murdering the deceased. The State stated that the accused would have murdered the deceased intentionally.
• The accused was found in charge based on section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 that provides the following: “A High Court must sentence a person to life imprisonment if they are convicted of certain serious crimes listed in Part I of Schedule 2 of the Act, unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances that justify a lesser sentence.”[2] The accused also violated section 11 of the Constitution, which states that everyone has a right to life.[3]
• The court considered the precedent at S v Mkohle, where it was declared that all evidence should be taken seriously, regardless of witnesses’ inability to explain an incident precisely how it occurred. Although it was the accused and the deceased only during the incident in this matter, the evidence of witnesses was also considered by the court.

Based on S v Mtshiza, if A assaults and kills B, A is not criminally responsible unless he foresaw the possibility of resulting death. In this matter, the accused was able to wake up and take his gun without checking whether his girlfriend was still with him in the bedroom. He talked to the so-called intruder once, and after the silence, he shot more than once. Since the psychologists proved that the accused was in a state of being able to differentiate between right and wrong, he would’ve foreseen the possibility of shooting and murdering a person.

The court also considered his other charge, where he took out a gun and shot under the table in a restaurant, resulting in property damage. The court described him as a fight instead of a flight person.

5.2 The Accused’s Arguments

• The accused said that he did not murder the deceased intentionally. He woke up during the early hours because he heard a noise from the bathroom, and he concluded that there was an intruder in his home. He said he took the gun, went to the bathroom, and shot through the door. He said he did that to protect himself and the deceased. He also said that he felt vulnerable since he is disabled. After finding out that he shot the deceased, he took the body of the deceased downstairs while crying for help.
• The defence relied on the evidence of the doctor who said that since the accused is a person with General Anxiety Disorder, there is a probability that the disorder influenced his conduct.
• The accused’s defence argued that since witnesses who were near the scene testified that they heard multiple gunshots, the accused fired not more than four gunshots. He further argued that there is a high possibility that the witnesses also heard a cricket bat banging the door and thought they were also gunshots. The accused’s defence argued that the accused felt vulnerable, which led him to shoot. He said that the death of the deceased and the conduct of the accused were a mistake.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

• The court appointed three psychiatrists based on section 78(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, which states that the accused who may be mentally ill in a way that could affect their criminal capacity must be ordered to be examined by a psychiatrist.[4] All the psychiatrists appointed by the court gave the same feedback. The accused was found to have criminal capacity during the incident. The South African law also refers to it as dolus eventualis when the accused foresaw the possibility of their conduct causing the result, but proceeded with their conduct. In this matter, the court found dolus eventualis absent.
• The court considered the precedent in S v van der Mayden, where it was argued that the onus of proof lies on the State. The State listened and considered all the testimonies of the witnesses and the accused because it is the state’s obligation to prove the charges against the accused. The State warned about the danger of rushing a verdict before examining the whole evidence presented.
• The court rejected the defence’s statement that the accused’s conduct and the death of the deceased were a mistake because the State believed that someone in his position would have foreseen the possibility of murdering a person due to his conduct. The State also rejected the use of his personal background, where his mother was also always anxious due to the high crime rate where they used to reside. The State argued that growing up in an area with a high crime rate does not justify someone being careless with things like firearms. However, the State accepted the fact that the accused, as a person living with disability, felt vulnerable, hence he thought of a gun as his protection tool.
• The Court raised the statement that since all witnesses gave different evidence in this matter, some evidence may be false, and some may be true, but the conclusion should be reached without leaving consideration of any evidence.
• The court applied the South African legal principle ‘audi alteram partem’, meaning everyone must present their side of the story before the adjudication. The court gave witnesses an ear to their testimonies and the accused himself. All rights were considered. The deceased’s family and society were hurt by the conduct of the accused. Their concerns had to be considered since they lost the deceased.

Judgement and Ratio Decidendi

The Decision

The court found that the accused murdered the deceased negligently, resulting in culpable homicide. It also agreed that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that if he fired at the door, whoever was behind the door might be struck by a bullet and die as a result. It also agreed that a reasonable person would have taken steps to guard against the possibility of the incident. The accused was found guilty of culpable homicide and sentenced to imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that murder is an intentional act of killing someone, but culpable homicide is a negligent act of killing someone.

Critical Analysis

The decision taken in this matter gave a concise and clear distinction between culpable homicide and murder. This case would also contribute to the decision of international legal matters. The judgment in this case does contribute to the development of South African law and international law. The decision affects the accused negatively because he raised vulnerability due to his disability and mental disorder issues as his defence, but in the end, his misconduct still led him to imprisonment; the court found him guilty. The court found him guilty because he infringed the deceased’s constitutional rights and the legislation (Criminal Procedure Act). The precedent of this case is still followed in relevant cases. In January 2026, in South Africa, there was a car collision between a school bus and a truck, in which fourteen learners lost their lives. The video from a CCTV proved that the driver of the school bus was trying to overtake vehicles that were in front of him when he got into the other lane, and the crash occurred. Individuals could not stop blaming due to negligence.

The Court showed its strength by not using his disability as an excuse to hold him accountable for his misconduct. The court also did not consider his fame or career as an excuse to set him free. Due to the facts of the case and other charges against him, the court saw him as a fight, not a flight person. The fact that he suffered from a mental disorder was also well approached by the court to find out if his mental condition contributed to his act. The precedent of this case is often used by courts because it is leading in criminal law. It was also used in S v Ngubane to differentiate between negligence and intention and to describe and test if the dolus eventualis was present.[5]

Conclusion

The decision taken in this case has left a landmark and contributed to the development of South African law. It is one of the cases that involves a well-known individual, a person regarded as an icon, but the law played its role fairly. That is how it will forever be remembered. The way the incident occurred left the entire society in shock. Today, it is cited in most cases because of the court’s reasoning during its proceedings. The court did not reject any valuable evidence. All evidence presented was considered important. No stone was left unturned in this case. All the relevant matters were examined by the court.

REFERENCE(S):

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

S v Ngubane 1985 (3) SA 677 (A)

S v Pistorius (CC113/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 793 (12 September 2014)

[1] S v Pistorius (CC113/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 793 (12 September 2014)

[2] Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997

[3] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,1996

[4] Section 78(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

[5] S v Ngubane 1985 (3) SA 677 (A)