The judge in the Oscar Pistorius trial has ruled out a verdict of premeditated murder, saying the prosecution failed to prove he killed his girlfriend deliberately after an argument.
But Judge Thokozile Masipa also rejected the defence’s argument that the athlete lacked criminal capacity.
The judge said she was satisfied the accused “could distinguish between right and wrong”.
She said he was an evasive witness but this did not mean he was guilty.
The South African Olympic sprinter denies murdering Ms Steenkamp on Valentine’s Day last year, saying he thought there was an intruder.
The judge could also find him guilty of culpable homicide, or manslaughter, for which he would face a long jail term.
Mr Pistorius, 27, has pleaded not guilty to all the charges he faces, including two counts of shooting a firearm in public and the illegal possession of ammunition.
‘Insignificant’ evidence
Judge Masipa began by detailing the charges against the athlete and repeating extracts of his testimony, reading in a slow, measured way.
She then moved on to a summary of the trial.
Tweets
-
An academic lull in what’s been a non-stop drama, as Masipa continues to ponder criminal liability case histories.
andrew harding just now
Jump out of Tweet pane
-
We’re back with a lesson in Latin…but Judge basically tackling whether dolus eventualis applies. Meant to shoot intruder but shot Reeva.
Pumza Fihlani 2 minutes ago
Jump out of Tweet pane
-
RT “@BBCAndrewH: Judge using A B and C to describe scenarios and possible verdicts…”
Nomsa Maseko 2 minutes ago
Jump out of Tweet pane
-
#Day42 of the #OscarTrial and it looks like it’ll all be over bar the shouting shortly. #JudgeMasipa doing this quite quickly.
Audrey Brown 3 minutes ago
Jump out of Tweet pane
-
Masipa cites murder cases including one colourfully named “a stab in the dark…”
andrew harding 3 minutes ago
Jump out of Tweet pane
-
loading
Content from Twitter. Learn more about content from Twitter.
A tense-looking Mr Pistorius looked on from the dock, and then began to weep.
The judge questioned the reliability of several witnesses who apparently heard screams and gunshots at the time of the incident, saying most of those who said they had heard the incident had “got facts wrong”.
The prosecution had used these witnesses to try to prove that Mr Pistorius had killed Ms Steenkamp with premeditation after an argument.
Later in her judgement, Judge Masipa concluded that the prosecution had failed in this.
“The state has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of premeditated murder,” she said. “There are just not enough facts to support such a finding.”
However, she also suggested that Mr Pistorius knew his actions might result in death, which would leave him open to the charge of murder rather than culpable homicide.
“He stated that if he wanted to shoot the intruder he would have shot higher up and more in the direction where the opening of the door would be. To the far right of the door and at chest height,” she said.
“I pause to state that this assertion is inconsistent with that of someone who shot without thinking.
The BBC’s Andrew Harding says the court is witnessing Judge Masipa’s logic and style – gentle, tolerant of error from witnesses, but razor sharp.
Correspondents say the judge appeared to be moving much more quickly than expected through the evidence, in a process which had been expected take hours or even days.
During his closing remarks last month, his lawyer Barry Roux conceded that the athlete should be found guilty of negligence for discharging a firearm in a restaurant – which carries a maximum penalty of five years.
Possible scenarios
|
||
---|---|---|
Verdict |
What it means |
Sentence |
Premeditated murder
|
Intended and planned to unlawfully kill Reeva Steenkamp, or an intruder
|
Mandatory life term – 25 years before parole
|
Common-law murder
|
Unlawfully intended to kill in the heat of the moment but without “malice aforethought”. Either: Shot door intending to kill, or knew someone might be killed and still fired gun
|
Minimum of 15 years up to 20 years, at judge’s discretion
|
Culpable homicide (manslaughter)
|
No intention to kill. Takes into account disability, but actions negligent and not in keeping with a reasonable person
|
Maximum of 15 years, possibly between seven and 10 years
|
Discharging a firearm in public
|
Two counts for allegedly firing a gun through a car sunroof and discharging a gun at a restaurant
|
A fine or up to five years – for each charge
|
Illegal possession of ammunition
|
In possession of .38 bullets for which he has no licence
|
A fine or up to 15 years
|
|
|
|
Most of the trial, which began on 3 March 2014, has been televised and attracted worldwide attention.
Before the fatal shooting, the 27-year-old athlete was feted in South Africa and known as the “blade runner”.
He had won gold at the London 2012 Paralympic Games and also competed at the Olympics.
The judgement at his trial is likely to be well over 100 pages. The judge is going through each charge, summing up the prosecution and defence cases and analysing the evidence.
Ms Steenkamp, a 29-year-old model and law graduate, was hit three times by bullets shot through a toilet door by Mr Pistorius at his home in the capital, Pretoria, in the early hours of 14 February 2013.
He denies the prosecution’s allegation that the couple – who had been dating for three months – had rowed.
The athlete said he thought she was still in the bedroom when he heard a noise in the bathroom, which he believed to be an intruder.
The prosecution have tried to characterise Mr Pistorius as a “hothead”, while his defence team have portrayed him as having a heightened response to perceived danger because of his disability and background.
In July, a psychiatric report requested by the judge said Mr Pistorius had post-traumatic stress disorder but no mental illness that could prevent him being held criminally responsible for his actions.