Oscar Pistorius, das Model, der Valentinstag und das war dann Notwehr

This is an example of a finding: "The accused was ultimately examined by four experts as envisaged by section 79(1)(b) of the CPA, including a clinical psychologist. The panel unanimously concluded both that he was able to follow proceedings so as to make a proper defence and that, at the time of the commission of the offence, he was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question and to act in accordance with such appreciation."

Now importantly for us, the words: "unanimously concluded that both that he was ABLE TO FOLLOW PROCEEDINGS SO AS TO MAKE A PROPER DEFENCE......."

This the reason that Gerrie kept on 'erring' purposefully in order to get a reaction from Oscar, confirming that he was well aware of what was happening, and what was being asked. Oscar's testimony and cross (record) will be available to the panel. Oscar showed with all intent that he was following every sentence like a rock star........

M'lady also made sure she got this on record.

They thought they would be ensuring the record reflected the truth for an appeal....but yet here we are right now.

I'm starting to think that Gerrie is delighted the diminished responsibility etc came up at this stage. Saving time (years in fact) for sure.

Yet he will probably still apply for leave to appeal conviction and sentence on grounds that will blow us all away.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243801&page=5

Interested schrieb:Ich hätte zu gerne erfahren, was OP zu Roux gesagt hat, nach dem gestrigen Tag vor Gericht. Ob er froh ist, dass man mal guckt, ob was nicht mit ihm stimmt - denn eigentlich ist es für ihn ja nur hilfreich, wenn vorhandene Störungen behandelt werden.

TruthLove schrieb:geht mir sehr nahe.

By Emma Hurd, Sky Correspondent, in Pretoria

In a hasty, whispered exchange with his lawyer, Oscar Pistorius was given the news of the judge's ruling just moments before she delivered it in court.

His expression - grim resignation - said it all: the defence had lost their legal fight to prevent the South African athlete being ordered to undergo a full evaluation of his mental health.

Judge Thokozile Masipa said she had a duty to refer the athlete for tests by a panel of government psychiatrists after one of the defence's own witnesses raised the issue of his mental condition.

From the defence's perspective, it was an unintended and undesirable consequence of their decision to call psychiatrist Merryl Vorster to the witness box.

She had told the court the athlete suffered from "Generalised Anxiety Disorder", a condition that might have influenced his actions on the night he shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The prosecution leapt on the diagnosis and immediately demanded the full, independent evaluation, warning that without it any conviction could be vulnerable to appeal.

The judge agreed and, suddenly, the 10-week long murder trial that was inching to a conclusion was adjourned.

The details of process will be determined when the court reconvenes on Tuesday.

But it is expected - likely much to the athlete’s relief - that he will be examined as an "out-patient" rather than admitted to a psychiatric facility for observation.

The panel of assessors will be made up of at least three psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

The usual period of observation is 30 days and it could then take a similar amount of time for the report to be compiled.

The key, in terms of the case, is whether the psychiatrists diagnose any disorder which might indicate "diminished capacity".

In layman’s terms - that the athlete's mental problems meant he could not be held responsible for the shooting.

That seems unlikely, but even a lesser "condition" might be a factor in the case and the court cannot proceed until the matter is settled so the trial may be delayed for months.

What has baffled many watching the trial - criminal lawyers among them - is why this was not all dealt with at the beginning of the case if it was a consideration.

And why Pistorius' own lawyers did not realise the implications of the evidence their own psychiatrist would give?

Some argue, and this is an allegation that's been raised by the prosecution, that the athlete’s legal team is so concerned by how the case is going that the net has been cast wide for any new defence - including his mental state.

Alternatively, they had hoped to introduce the "anxiety disorder" not as a determining factor in the case but simply as context for the events of the shooting on Valentine’s Day last year.

Either way, the athlete's mental health is now right at the heart of the trial and only verdict that matters, at least for now, is that of the psychiatrists.

Related Stories
Oscar Pistorius To Have Psychiatric Tests
Oscar Pistorius 'Suffers From Anxiety Disorder'
Pistorius Trial: Witness Plays Part Of Reeva

79 Panel for purposes of enquiry and report under sections 77 and 78

(1) Where a court issues a direction under section 77 (1) or 78 (2), the relevant enquiry shall be conducted and be reported on-
(b) where the accused is charged with murder
(i) by the medical superintendent of a psychiatric hospital designated by the court, or by a psychiatrist appointed by the medical superintendent at the request of the court;
(ii) by a psychiatrist appointed by the court and who is not in the full-time service of the State unless the court directs otherwise, upon application of the prosecutor, in accordance with directives issued under subsection (13) by the National Director of Public Prosecutions;
(iii) by a psychiatrist appointed for the accused by the court; and
(iv) by a clinical psychologist where the court so directs.

(1A) The prosecutor undertaking the prosecution of the accused or any other prosecutor attached to the same court shall provide the persons who, in terms of subsection (1), have to conduct the enquiry and report on the accused's mental capacity with a report in which the following are stated, namely-
(a) whether the referral is taking place in terms of section 77 or 78;
(b) at whose request or on whose initiative the referral is taking place;
(c) the nature of the charge against the accused;
(d) the stage of the proceedings at which the referral took place;
(e) the purport of any statement made by the accused before or during the court proceedings that is relevant with regard to his or her mental condition or mental capacity;
(f) the purport of evidence that has been given that is relevant to the accused's mental condition or mental capacity;
(g) in so far as it is within the knowledge of the prosecutor, the accused's social background and family composition and the names and addresses of his or her near relatives; and
(h) any other fact that may in the opinion of the prosecutor be relevant in the evaluation of the accused's mental condition or mental capacity.

(2) (a) The court may for the purposes of the relevant enquiry commit the accused to a psychiatric hospital or to any other place designated by the court, for such periods, not exceeding thirty days at a time, as the court may from time to time determine, and where an accused is in custody when he is so committed, he shall, while he is so committed, be deemed to be in the lawful custody of the person or the authority in whose custody he was at the time of such committal.
(b) When the period of committal is for the first time extended under paragraph (a), such extension may be granted in the absence of the accused unless the accused or his legal representative requests otherwise.

(3) The relevant report shall be in writing and shall be submitted in triplicate to the registrar or, as the case may be, the clerk of the court in question, who shall make a copy thereof available to the prosecutor and the accused.

(4) The report shall-
(a) include a description of the nature of the enquiry; and
(b) include a diagnosis of the mental condition of the accused; and (c) if the enquiry is under section 77 (1), include a finding as to whether the accused is capable of understanding the proceedings in question so as to make a proper defence; or
(d) if the enquiry is in terms of section 78 (2), include a finding as to the extent to which the capacity of the accused to appreciate the wrongfulness of the act in question or to act in accordance with an appreciation of the wrongfulness of that act was, at the time of the commission thereof, affected by mental illness or mental defect or by any other cause.

(5) If the persons conducting the relevant enquiry are not unanimous in their finding under paragraph (c) or (d) of subsection (4), such fact shall be mentioned in the report and each of such persons shall give his finding on the matter in question.

(6) Subject to the provisions of subsection (7), the contents of the report shall be admissible in evidence at criminal proceedings.

(7) A statement made by an accused at the relevant enquiry shall not be admissible in evidence against the accused at criminal proceedings, except to the extent to which it may be relevant to the determination of the mental condition of the accused, in which event such statement shall be admissible notwithstanding that it may otherwise be inadmissible.


http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243801&page=4