IN tMr MArtlni K Aita ' **MRT FOR PRETORIA

(Nr i o Ai r*rcrurtiAi

Irtttim*n*r3fc

Case no. C13/255/13

OSCAR PISTORIUS APPLICANT

vtrtuft

THE STATE RESPONDENT

STATES HEADS OP ARGUMENT: BAIL APPLICATION

GENERAL

1

The applicant la charged with MURDER.

2.

In summary the allegations and state case are that the applicant shot and

killed an unarmed, innocent woman during the early hours of 14 February

2013.

The Incident took place in the residence of the applicant and we are confident

that it will not be in dispute that the applicant fired 4 shots three of which hit

the deceased and caused her death.

She was unarmed and inside a toilet with the door closed. The applicant fired

shots from outside the closed door of the toilet.

2

3.

The State argues that the applicant is charged with an offence referred to in

Schedule 6.

"Murder, when

(a) It was pre planned or premeditated;

We argue the Applicant bears the onus to ..."adduce evidence, and hence to

prove, to the satisfaction of the court the existence of exceptional

circumstance of such nature as to permit his release on bail. The court must

also be satisfied that the release of the accused is in the interest of justice'

SEE S v Peterson 2008 (2) SACR 355 at 54

We drafted the heads with the expectation that the applicant will argue that he

should be charged with "murder" as contemplated in Schedule 5.

He will have to argue that the State, who is dominus litis, is clearly wrong.

It is of utmost importance to take into account that the State only has its case

and facts available. The applicant has not furnished a version of any sorts.

The court, with respect, may only take the state's "facts' into account in

establishing the nature of the crime because there is no other version before

it.

The defence may argue that the state on its own version of the facts are

wrong but cannot, with respect, before it has adduced a version, argue that

the court should take his version of events or possible defences into account.

mUHfftWf] The court hat the right and even duty to establish if U fcUtf* t If101 inferences are, at this stage, correct and that it amount* te the WtfWWl**Wf! i t

pre-planned or premeditated murder.

The state understands that it has to - and will place t

agents i 0(y b e r e t e v a n ) " * * . * * * - ,

" * *f t

* * have adduced evidence

convince the court that the-imeras,,* I ' justice permits his release

There are different burdens a . tar as the different schedules art concerned

THE CRIMF

9.

The following are the objective facts and/or state case:

There were 2 people in the house during the evening of 13-14

February 2013 - the applicant and the deceased who were in a

relationship.

The deceased arrived between 17:00 and 18:00 on the 13th of

February 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused

ftm court should not wm. C(

* " " aspect, take i n ^

***** tat i * * , d e t B n e ,

N i ttccow* *

rguments wttt lybe f e | e V a n t

and/or that the state has

once all parties have adduced evidef

amis * ^Prov is ions of schedule

e v i n c e the court that the -, 5 a n d /

r 6 the applicant has an onus to nterest of justice permits his release

The.* are d i f f e r burden, as far as the different schedules are concerned

THE Cfiiftf g

Wm following art the objective facts end/or state case

There ware 2 people In the house during the evening of 13-14

February 2013 the applicant and the deceased who were in a

relationship.

The deceased arrived between 17:00 and 18:00 on the 13" ol

February 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused

* *e ummm do** or tme) Tte ** wa

8 h o t three t.mea whifst she wa8 in the toilet behind aeJMtddoor

* * * * * feithfOam W i toilet * about 6 metres from the main bedroom and kHwt from tho main entrance and living area of the applicant's

h

te *

, N THE MAGISTRAL

(HELD AT PRETORIA) ^ ^ " H i m

, n 'he matter of:

11

OSCAR PfSTORlUS APPLICANT

versus

THE STATE RESPONDENT

CHARGE SHEET

The Accused is charged with MURDER

&& of WHEREAS the accused was at

his residence on the night of 13 - 14 February

AND WHEREAS the deceased

e ruary 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused arrived at this premises between 17:00 and 18:00 on

WHEREAS an overnight bag of the deceased was found in the main bedroom and a cosmetic bag in the bathroom (scene of crime)

AND WHEREAS there is a toilet in the abovementioned bathroom

AND WHEREAS the bathroom and toilet is about 7 metres from the main bedroom and upstairs from the main entrance and living area of the applicant's house.

A N D WHEREAS passage links the bathroom and bedroom

AND WHEREAS the surface area of the toilet is 1.4 x 1.14 m

AND WHEREAS the accused shot the deceased three times whilst she was in the toilet behind a closed door.

AND WHEREAS the deceased died as result of the gunshots

NOW THEREFORE the accused is guilty of murder

COUNT 1

In that on or about 14 February 2013 and at or near Bushwillow street in the district < Pretoria, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill REEVA STEENKAMP a fema person

^ C H D U R E

12.

We argue that the court would be entrtled to make a finding that the crime fits

into the category as described in Schedule 6 and after having heard the

evidence it could make a finding that it is not convinced that there was any

preplanning or premeditation and apply the test as prescribed in section

60(11)(b) or merely find that the absence of premeditation could constitute exceptional circumstance

an

13.

Should the court however reject the State's argument that the murder was premeditated it would not be entitled to later apply the stricter onus as

prescribed in Section 60(11 )(a) if the state leads evidence that it was in fact premeditated.