The Oscar Pistorius case, strange way of going about things?

P_1

First of all apologies if we're not allowed to discuss ongoing cases, please lock and delete if so.

Just a quick question for the qualified folks here.

At the moment this case is at the bail hearing stage, yet it seems that the case for the defense is being outlined. Is that normal to be happening at this stage? I was always of the impression that that didn't happen until the case reached trial.

charlemont

Its obviously going to be different in a different country.

CIARAN_BOYLE

P_1 wrote: »

First of all apologies if we're not allowed to discuss ongoing cases, please lock and delete if so.

Just a quick question for the qualified folks here.

At the moment this case is at the bail hearing stage, yet it seems that the case for the defense is being outlined. Is that normal to be happening at this stage? I was always of the impression that that didn't happen until the case reached trial.

The south african legal system is different to ours and I'm not a professional in either system. As far as I understand in south africa the accused is entitled to bail unless, the accused poses a threat to public or individual safety.

Pistorius's lawyers seem to be (from my limited following of the case) trying to establish that he thought there was an intruder in the house and that he is no threat to the public at large.

gerbo

Apparently he is being charged with a "category 6" offence which automatically refuses him bail. If his lawyers can convince the court that the murder was not premeditated it can be downgraded to a "category 5" offence and he may be entitled to bail. That's why they are going into such detail at the bail hearing.

P_1

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

The south african legal system is different to ours and I'm not a professional in either system. As far as I understand in south africa the accused is entitled to bail unless, the accused poses a threat to public or individual safety.

Fair point, I always assumed that the South African system worked in a similar way to ours (being derived from the British system)

godtabh

They also dont have jurys in SA

P_1

godtabh wrote: »

They also dont have jurys in SA

Really? Interesting way of doing things for criminal law

godtabh

According to my SA work colleague they dont

CIARAN_BOYLE

godtabh wrote: »

They also dont have jurys in SA

I read about that, something about massive class and racial divide that still permeates south african society meaning that many people from a different racial group would be inclined to judge on skin colour or wealth.

P_1

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I read about that, something about massive class and racial divide that still permeates south african society meaning that many people from a different racial group would be inclined to judge on skin colour or wealth.

Never thought of it from that angle. I can see how that could cause a problem in finding an impartial jury alright.

ResearchWill

P_1 wrote: »

Really? Interesting way of doing things for criminal law

I would guess that more countries don't use juries than do. In much of Europe Jury trials are only preserved for very serious crimes.

seagull

The South African legal system is based on Roman-Dutch law, rather than UK law.

ResearchWill

seagull wrote: »

The South African legal system is based on Roman-Dutch law, rather than UK law.

It's a mix of both http://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/content.php?pid=167351&sid=1410025

Procrastastudy

Hybrid legal system like the Scots (better put by RW though.)

Peregrinus

Juries were abolished in SA in the 1930s because of concerns about whether (at the time, all-white) juries could be impartial with respect to non-white defendants/witnesses/etc. They've never been restored.

Because there's no danger of prejudicing jurors or potential jurors, there's generally much greater freedom about disclosing the prosecution case, or parts of it, in advance of the trial. (It's assumed that judges and magistrates will have the professional awareness and skill required to avoid being prejudiced by this.) And there's a corresponding freedom about disclosing the defence case, or parts of it. In the context of a bail application this is sometimes done in order to argue that the prosecution case is weak.

This can sometimes lead to embarrasment and confusion as in the present case where, early in the bail proceedings, the prosecution alleged that they found steroids in the defendant's house and later on admitted that maybe what they found weren't steroids as such, actually. Clearly, they've disclosed a case that's not quite solid yet, and presumably they felt pressurised into doing that.