You are on page 1of 12

IN tMr MArtlni K A i t a ' **MRT FOR PRETORIA (Nr i o Ai r*rcrurtiAi

Case no. C13/255/13










1 The applicant la charged with MURDER.


In summary the allegations and state case are that the applicant shot and killed an unarmed, innocent woman during the early hours of 14 February 2013.

The Incident took place in the residence of the applicant and we are confident that it will not be in dispute that the applicant fired 4 shots three of which hit the deceased and caused her death.

She was unarmed and inside a toilet with the door closed. The applicant fired shots from outside the closed door of the toilet.


The State argues that the applicant is charged with an offence referred to in Schedule 6.

"Murder, when (a) It was pre planned or premeditated;

We argue the Applicant bears the onus to ..."adduce evidence, and hence to prove, to the satisfaction of the court the existence of exceptional

circumstance of such nature as to permit his release on bail. The court must also be satisfied that the release of the accused is in the interest ofjustice'

SEE S v Peterson 2008 (2) SACR 355 at 54

We drafted the heads with the expectation that the applicant will argue that he should be charged with "murder" as contemplated in Schedule 5.

He will have to argue that the State, who is dominus litis, is clearly wrong.

It is of utmost importance to take into account that the State only has its case and facts available. The applicant has not furnished a version of any sorts.

The court, with respect, may only take the state's "facts' into account in establishing the nature of the crime because there is no other version before it.

The defence may argue that the state on its own version of the facts are wrong but cannot, with respect, before it has adduced a version, argue that the court should take his version of events or possible defences into account.

The court hat the right and even duty to establish if UfcUtf*t mUHfftWf] If101 inferences are, at this stage, correct and that it amount* te the WtfWWl**Wf! i t pre-planned or premeditated murder.

The state understands that it has to - and will place t<tofli ftMff tfH fi(V0frl evidence at its disposal including that which It in favour f the ''**'* argument as to the nature of the crime and/or hit release on !--*<

We respectfully argue the premeditation per defmnon Includes consider eftfrfi by the accused of his actions and a decision to act in tcuMl*nce Willi Ihe consideration to kill a human being, One could even Include measure i f preparation.

It is our respectful argument that the court should, with respect, distlnQuith between the question regarding the nature of the crime and the question If exceptional circumstances exist.

The presence or absence of exceptional circumstances at the start Of formal bail application has no consequence as to the nature of - and onus to bf applied during the bail application,

agents i 0 ( y b e

retevan) ft


. * * * - ,

" * * * * have adduced evidence

convince the court that the-imeras,,* I ' justice permits his release

There are different burdens a . tar

as the different schedules art concerned



The following are the objective facts and/or state case:

There were 2 people in the house during the evening of 13-14 February 2013 - the applicant and the deceased who were in a relationship.

The deceased arrived between 17:00 and 18:00 on the 13th of February 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused

ftm court should not wm.


* " " aspect, take



i **,


rguments wttt l y b e | fe eVant

* * and/or that the state has once all parties have adduced

in^ N i ttccow

r 6 the applicant has an onus to e v i n c e the court that the -, nterest of justice permits his release

amis * ^ P r o v i s i o n s of schedule 5


The.* are d i f f e r burden, as far

as the different schedules are concerned

THE Cfiiftf g

Wm following art the objective facts end/or statecase

There ware 2 people In the house during the evening of 13-14 February 2013 the applicant and the deceased who were in a relationship.

The deceased arrived between 17:00 and 18:00 on the 13" ol February 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused

* *e ummm do** or tme)

Tte * * wa 8 h o t three t.mea whifst she wa 8 in the toilet behind

aeJMtddoor * * * * *feithfOamW i toilet * about 6 metres from the main bedroom and

Hwt from tho main entrance and living area of the applicant's


A passage links the bathroom and bedroom * * * houtt it situated in 0 security complex with 24 hour security available

The door to the toilet WM broken open from the outside - the only reasonable inference being that It was locked and could not be opened.

The applicant gained access to the toilet and carried the deceased downstairs where he walked Into security guards.

The main door to the house was not locked The applicant said to a friend/sister that he thought it was a burglar. We arau* that this was part of the pre-planning to use as a defence. Why would a burglar lock himself into a toilet?

There may have been an argument earlier between the applicant and the deceased?

That State argues that the only reasonable inference is that the applicant armed himself attached his prosthesis, walked 25 metres to the bathroom and shot the deceased whilst she was in the toilet.

te *<** fQUr times anw t ,


* * ^ aimed at the basin.


-.*? s in 3

* * * % comply


would have been on the bed with the


* * H no possible explanation to *****JfiaJar

support his report that he thought that it

N * own version he readied himself walked to the bathroom with the mrtoort and plan to M l the "burglar" and did so whilst the burglar was and contained in a toilet


constitutes pre-meditated murder of a 'defenceless burglar"


tttouraaspectfui argument that "pre-planning or premeditation do not of planning - It I arm and ready myself and walk a distance
AIM Mi^fe ^ f r | ,


'wl WW rnn&ftuQfl


U someoneftis premeditated.








'he matter of:







The Accused is charged with MURDER

&&of WHEREAS the accused was at his residence on the night of 13 - 14 February

AND WHEREAS the deceased

arrived at this premises between 17:00 and 18:00 on

e ruary 2013 and planned to spend the night with the accused WHEREAS an overnight bag of the deceased was found in the main bedroom and a cosmetic bag in the bathroom (scene of crime) A N D WHEREAS there is a toilet in the abovementioned bathroom A N D WHEREAS the bathroom and toilet is about 7 metres from the main bedroom and upstairs from the main entrance and living area of the applicant's house.

A N D W H E R E A S passage links the bathroom and bedroom

AND WHEREAS the surface area of the toilet is 1.4 x 1.14 m AND WHEREAS the accused shot the deceased three times whilst she was in the toilet behind a closed door.

AND WHEREAS the deceased died as result of the gunshots NOW THEREFORE the accused is guilty of murder


In that on or about 14 February 2013 and at or near Bushwillow street in the district

Pretoria, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill REEVA STEENKAMP a fem person



We argue that the court would be entrtled to make a finding that the crime fits into the category as described in Schedule 6 and after having heard the evidence it could make a finding that it is not convinced that there was any preplanning or premeditation and apply the test as prescribed in section 60(11)(b) or merely find that the absence of premeditation could constitute exceptional circumstance



Should the court however reject the State's argument that the murder was premeditated it would not be entitled to later apply the stricter onus as prescribed in Section 60(11 )(a) if the state leads evidence that it was in fact premeditated.

l i i AMGU/WfeNl


* * *

* *



t ) f o v (



* i i i ,