Whilst I don't question the changed verdict - though I have always wondered whether the murder charge would have even been considered if the person killed had turned out to be a burglar - it is sad that such an incredible athlete should have fallen this far. One feels for both the families involved.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34993002
By the way, does 'dolus eventualis' exist in British law and, if it does, does it exist in the same form as in S.African law?
Roman Dutch Law is the underlying platform on which South African law is based and my understanding is that 'dolus eventualis' is a feature of this legal framework.
Even if the person killed had turned out to be an intruder a murder charge would still have been probable. South Africa has extremely strict laws governing gun ownership and their use. It has to be unequivocally shown that your life was in imminent danger before using a firearm in self defence. Firing a single shot through a closed door at a person hiding in a toilet would not qualify, but could possibly get you off a first degree murder charge to one of extenuating circumstances. But four shots?
If you want to own a firearm in this country you must have no record of any psychological illness and possess a certificate from a state authorised body that you are proficient in its use. You are also required to own a good quality safe which needs to be bolted to a brick wall using heavy bolts, inspected and approved by a police firearms expert. The firearm needs to be kept securely in the safe at all times when not actually being carried on your person. Losing a firearm through theft is a serious offence. There have been instances of people having their firearms taken from under their pillows at night by 'stealth intruders'. This is no excuse in the eyes of the law.
I was speaking to a retired public prosecutor the other day who said that the general consensus of opinion in legal circle was that the verdict would be overturned and replaced by a murder verdict. Unfortunately, the original trial was inevitably going to become little more that a media circus once the TV cameras were allowed into the court. Plus the fact that, given this county's history of racial intolerance, a trial with a black judge presiding over a case where the accused was a high profile white athlete, would always be charged with the tensions of possible accusations of racial prejudice. Much as the judge is a highly respected person with a sound track record, this must have always been in the back of her mind, leading to possibly erring too far towards extending the benefit of the doubt.
