Judge Thokozile Masipa said the court would reconvene on Wednesday 6 July for her to hand down sentence.
Masipa also allowed an application by chief prosecutor Gerrie Nel, backed by the Steenkamp family, to publish photos of Reeva Steenkamp’s injuries.
Nel: Isn’t it time we now finally let the world see what this accused did with four black talon rounds through a door?
Defence: ‘no purpose served’ in sending Pistorius to prison
In a moment of high drama, and with many people in court in tears, Oscar Pistorius took off his prostheses and walked across the room, grabbing a desk for support.
Defence counsel
Barry Roux
told the judge:
I don’t want to overplay vulnerability … I don’t want to overplay disability … It doesn’t mean because he’s vulnerable that he can do what he likes. That’s not what we say.
But when we’re entering the field of sentencing, look at that man’s conduct … Please let’s understand … who is this man that you must sentence?
“There is no purpose served” by sending Pistorius back to prison, Roux argued, and he should instead perform community service:
Punishment is not meant to break the defendant … The accused does not fall into the category of offender who should be removed from society.
Roux said there were “serious enemies” in the case, including the widely-held perception that Pistorius had intended to killSteenkamp, and the unwillingness of many people to take into account the circumstances:
It was not the man winning gold medals that must be judged … It was a 1.5-metre person, standing on his stumps, three o’clock in the morning when it was dark.
The defence cited the case of rugby player Vleis Visagie, who accidentally killed his daughter and was not prosecuted:
How must you feel when you fire those shots that you should not have, and it’s your own girlfriend?
The facts of the case were not set aside by the supreme court, which upgraded the conviction to murder on a legal point, Roux said. The original five-year sentence relied on those same facts: he was anxious, vulnerable and afraid; he did not intend to kill Steenkamp.
The decision to broadcast the trial had not benefitted Pistorius, Roux said:
No other accused has ever had to endure this level of publicity, misinformation and character assassination.
State: ‘15 years in prison is the minimum’
Gerrie Nel, for the state, said the judge had no choice under the law but to start with a minimum sentence of 15 years in prison.
It was not plausible to argue that Pistorius was remorseful when he still has “no acceptable explanation” for why he acted as he did, Nel said.
Nel said that while the defence talked about Pistorius’ suffering, Reeva Steenkamp “disappeared”.
She is just as important as the personal circumstances of the accused … She can never walk in court.
Nel said the “broken man” in the courtroom was not Pistorius but BarrySteenkamp, Reeva’s father, and that his decision to forgive his daughter’s killer was not a reason for leniency:
Forgiveness has more to do with the person forgiving than with the crime.
Barry Steenkamp looks across to Oscar Pistorius in the dock. Photograph: Alon Skuy/AP
Nel said it was “disrespectful to the court, to the victims of this crime, to the deceased” that Pistorius had chosen to give an interview to ITV, to be broadcast next week.
The final witness
First the court heard from Kim Martin, cousin of Reeva Steenkamp. She said her family would not get over the killing, and said Pistorius’ decision to give an interview to Britain’s ITV channel was “hurtful”:
People say we got the truth, but we didn’t. Oscar’s version changed so many times …
He never apologised for shooting Reeva. I don’t feel the truth came out.
The live blog will return on 6 July for sentencing. Thank you for reading.
Masipa says she will deal first with the application to release the photos of Steenkamp’s injuries.
She says it was the state who asked for them to be withheld in the first place.
As a result, she does not think there needs to be a separate application, as the same party – that is , the state – is making the case to make them public now.
While we wait for the judge to return, some insight on why Oscar Pistorius decided to give an interview to ITV, which will be broadcast next week. It prompted criticism from Gerrie Nel in court, as the prosecutor accused him of giving his version of what happened on the night he killed Reeva Steenkamp to a TV channel and not to the court:
The statement, from Pistorius’ uncle Arnold Pistorius, explains:
We have been deeply respectful of the legal process and mindful not to contribute to the media frenzy that has characterised this case. We declined almost all requests for interviews and comment …
Despite the many, many requests for interviews with Oscar from across the globe – often coupled with huge financial inducements – we have been absolutely consistent in our position that there would be no interview, or media engagement, for Oscar’s financial benefit … Neither Oscar nor the Pistorius family will make any money out of this documentary …
Not knowing what the future holds for Oscar after this week, I decided it was necessary to take up one media offer that would provide our family with a voice … I wish to make it very clear that this engagement with ITV was my decision, and not Oscar’s initiative.
Roux has finished. Nel returns to the topic of the application to release the photos of Steenkamp.
Nel says the court can agree that the photos can only be shown in court, or made available to the media. They are exhibits and so public documents. They were not made public only to “protect the integrity of the deceased”.
But now, he says, it’s the view of the Steenkamp family that the images ought to be released:
They have to bear the consequences … We think it’s time that people should see what those bullets did; what the accused did.
Barry Roux now turns to his rebuttal of the state’s closing argument.
He says Barry Steenkamp repeated in his evidence that he still believes there was an argument between his daughter and Pistorius on the night she was killed. Roux says the state’s decision to pursue a case based on an assumption that Pistorius deliberately killed her has exacerbated the family’s distress.
Nel asks the judge if she will rule today on the release of the Steenkamp injury photographs. Masipa says this would be extending the scope of these proceedings – we are here for sentencing.
The witness, Barry Steenkamp, testified in these proceedings, Nel says.
The court should have access to these photographs. The court itself should revisit certain things in sentencing …
Four bullets tore through her body. The court should take that into account as an aggravating factor … It’s part of sentencing.
Roux speaks now. He says it should be a separate application that would need separate submissions. This isn’t the appropriate stage, he says.
Must children look at it? … What is going to be achieved?
Nel says Barry Steenkamp did not display anger or hatred towards Pistorius, only grief. He said he should pay for his crime, but not that he must be “sent away for ever”.
Nel asks for photographs of Steenkamp's injuries to be made public
Nel asks Judge Masipa to lift the order banning the publication of crime scene photographs of Reeva Steenkamp, as requested by her father in his testimony yesterday.
Barry Steenkamp said he wanted the world to see the wounds inflicted on her and the pain she must have felt.
Carl Pistorius, the defendant’s brother, who is in court, has tweeted to say the move is “distasteful”.
This application is distasteful to all parties. Except perhaps some parties who stand to profit from such.
Nel says the finding that Pistorius did not specifically intend to kill Steenkamp is not a mitigating factor. He says if an offender sets off a bomb that kills 50 people, it does not matter that he does not know the identities of those 50 people.
He is guilty of the murder of Reeva. He killed her.
Believing he was shooting at an intruder is not a mitigating factor, Nel insists:
The identity of the victim is irrelevant to his guilt and irrelevant to sentence.
It is fair for the court to take the accused’s personal circumstances into account, Nel says. But in this case, this “recedes into the background” compared with the seriousness of the offence.
Reeva Steenkamp “disappeared” in this trial, he says. The court should take into account “who she was … what dreams she had”.
She is just as important as the personal circumstances of the accused … She can never walk in court.
It doesn’t matter if Pistorius thought he was firing at an intruder, Nel goes on:
Is an intruder’s life not important? Did he think of that life?
Pistorius’ actions were gratuitous, Nel tells the judge:
I cannot think of a more excessive use of a firearm … He fired four shots that tore up the body of the deceased.
Nel turns to the issue of remorse. Pistorius has not “taken the court fully into … his confidence” and so genuine remorse can’t be established, he says. We still don’t know the real reason why he fired those shots.
What motivated him? We don’t know.
Nel says Pistorius’ acceptance of the verdict against him is because “he had to – there was no other way out”. He says Pistorius has shown regret but not remorse.
I caused her death is not the same as I murdered her.
Without that, there can be no remorse.
The prospects of rehabilitation are remote for as long as Pistorius fails to acknowledge the crime of which he has been convicted.
What the court has heard is that the accused elected to give an interview to the TV but not take this court into his confidence. That’s disrespectful to the court, it’s disrespectful to the victims of this crime, it’s disrespectful to the deceased.
