Advertisement

Q&A: What House Arrest Means For Oscar Pistorius

Q&A: What House Arrest Means For Oscar Pistorius

Oscar Pistorius has been released from prison in South Africa 12 months after starting a five-year sentence for killing his girlfriend.

Sky News legal expert Llewelyn Curlewis answers some of the key questions around the case.

:: Why is Oscar Pistorius being released now?

Judge Masipa sentenced Pistorius to correctional supervision after he was convicted of culpable homicide.

There are two types of correctional supervision in South Africa. One can be imposed for three years and does not include jail time.

The other - which applies to Pistorius - can be imposed for a maximum of five years.

It means the athlete can be placed under community supervision (house arrest) after serving at least one sixth of his sentence in prison. Pistorius has done that and so is allowed to serve the rest of his sentence under house arrest.

:: What does house arrest mean?

Oscar Pistorius will not be allowed to leave the jurisdiction area of Pretoria without written permission from the commissioner or correctional services and parole board.

He is allowed to leave the house within certain timeframes, usually from dusk until dawn, to go and attend his work, train or to start a rehabilitative programme so that he can be taken into society in due course - that is the purpose of it.

He will not be able to use or misuse alcohol or substances of any nature whatsoever.

Typically he may do community service - he may have to work over weekends in victims’ programmes or in mediation between victims and families and himself.

He has expressed some interest in working with children and I can't see any problem with that. He was not convicted of child molestation or something that would exclude him from working with children.

:: There is still an appeal pending. What can we expect?

On 3 November the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein (South Africa’s highest court for non-constitutional matters) will decide whether Judge Masipa was correct in her verdict.

Five judges will hear the appeal but everything is based on the court record - so no new evidence. The lawyers will be allowed to make submissions but that is it.

Appeals are difficult to win because the judge's initial decision gets the benefit of the doubt. This is because she is the one who heard and saw the witnesses first-hand.

If the appeal court finds that Judge Masipa was correct then that’s the end of the road. If not, the court can do whatever it deems necessary to see that justice is done - including a different sentence. He could even be returned to jail.

:: From what we know of the case, how likely is it that the Supreme Court of Appeal will intervene?

It's not likely. The Supreme Court of Appeal doesn’t have the prerogative to hear the evidence orally. They’re confined to the paperwork.

It's not a re-trial and there will be no new evidence at all. Also, if there is any doubt, the benefit of that doubt must go to the judge's original verdict.

:: Has Pistorius' sentence been fairly typical for this kind of violent killing - or is there legal credibility behind those who say he has got off lightly?

The fact he was convicted of the lesser charge is not extraordinary.

Correctional Supervision can be imposed for any type of offence in South Africa, although it is very unlikely if the crime comes under minimum sentencing laws - for example, if he had been convicted of murder and not merely culpable homicide.

:: Aside from the appeal – is this the end of Pistorius’ legal difficulties, or could he face further action, such as a civil action from the Steenkamp family?

Any civil action has to be filed within three years of the crime taking place - so, in this case, by 14 February 2016.

The Steenkamp family had previously said through their lawyers during the trial that they were not interested in civil action but they are not bound by that statement.

Also, it might be that the correctional supervision requires compensation to be paid. We don’t know - it was not disclosed. It might be that he has to pay compensation to the victim's family.