ConCourt denies Oscar Pistorius's leave to appeal

The NPA confirmed the Constitutional Court has denied Oscar Pistorius leave to appeal his murder conviction.

Picture: Pool.

JOHANNESBURG - The National Prosecuting Authority has confirmed the Constitutional Court has denied Oscar Pistorius's leave to appeal his murder conviction.

He lost his case in the Supreme Court of Appeal and took the matter to the highest court in the land.

Pistorius will be sentenced next month for killing his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day in 2013.

The NPA's Luvuyo Mfaku says it will ask for a minimum of 15 years.

He says the court found that there was no prospect of success.

"We can confirm that we received an order from the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to the effect that the leave to appeal is dismissed due to lack of prospects of success."

Nine constitutional court judges, led by chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, found that Pistorius could not be granted leave to appeal.

This decision means he will return to the High Court where Judge Thokozile Masipa will hear sentencing arguments.

"The matter was postponed to 18 April for sentencing procedures. He'll appear in court and sentencing will continue as planned," added Mfaku.


Last month, State prosecutors argued that they strongly believe it is not in the interests of justice for the Constitutional Court to entertain the athlete's appeal against his murder conviction.

Advocate Andrea Johnson argued that it is in the interest of justice that Pistorius appears before the trial court to be sentenced for the crime he committed, murder.

She said the SCA correctly identified the trial court's fundamental error that because Pistorius believed that Steenkamp was in the bedroom, he could not be convicted of murder.

Johnson added that it is remarkable to note and remains inexplicable that the defence team continues to endorse and persist with this flawed reasoning.

While the defence argued that the SCA failed to apply a specific component of dolus eventualis, the state said the defence has not provided any case law or accepted academic literature to support its argument.