As it happened: Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide, granted bail until sentencing hearing

4.35: Now to sentencing dates… Oscar Pistorius’ lawyer Barry Roux asks for 13-16 October. And Masipa agrees. 4.33: Masipa extends Oscar Pistorius’s bail until the sentencing hearing. Masipa: If state had any reason to suspect there was anything untoward regarding property sales, the state would have investigated long ago. 4.26: Judge Masipa says, “The state says #Pistorius has been convicted of a serious offence, does not own property and was involved in a nightclub incident. The defence conceded that the accused was found guilty of a serious offence, but the state had not discharged the onus.” 2.45: Court has adjourned for an hour and 15 minutes 2.42: “The accused was convicted in the high court of negligently killing the deceased. Bail is not in the interests of justice,” says Nel — who clearly doesn’t want OP to get out on bail. Roux admits that it is a serious verdict and that Pistorius shouldn’t have gone to a club. He also says that the properties being sold had a reason — money for legal fees and not to run away abroad. Roux then says that there is no reason to suggest Pistorius is suicidal. https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510354752358854656 https://twitter.com/jeromestarkey/status/510354505549230080 2.35: Roux says that Pistorius was out on bail on a serious charge and complied with all the conditions — so there is no reason to not allow him bail before sentencing. 2.33: Judge Masipa is back in court now. 1.57: https://twitter.com/GeraldImrayAP/status/510345808441802752 1.55 PM: https://twitter.com/barrybateman/status/510344954565386240 1.54 PM: Masipa: This court was mindful that “his evidence ought to be approached with caution… He was dishonest in the sunroof incident.” 1.53 PM: Masipa: This court was mindful that “his evidence ought to be approached with caution… He was dishonest in the sunroof incident.” 1.52 PM: https://twitter.com/barrybateman/status/510344413751828480 1.51 PM: https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510344009332842496 1.49 PM: Masipa: Defence argued Fresco’s evidence was contradictory and improbable, if not impossible. Gave false evidence in relation to sunroof. https://twitter.com/karynmaughan/status/510343241972334592 1.45 PM: https://twitter.com/FirstpostSports/status/510342503631835136 1.43 PM: https://twitter.com/karynmaughan/status/510341949279453184 1.42 PM: https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510341366287958016 1.40 PM: Masipa: A reasonable person would have foreseen the possibility that the person behind the door might have been killed by the shots. 1.39 PM: Masipa: “The accused acted negligently when he fired shots into the toilet door, knowing there was someone behind the toilet door.” 1.38 PM: https://twitter.com/Simmoa/status/510340956101804032 1.36 PM: Masipa: It cannot be said the accused did not entertain a genuine belief there was an intruder in the toilet who posed a threat to him. 1.35 PM: https://twitter.com/becsplanb/status/510339358873124864 https://twitter.com/ewnreporter/status/510339467300069376 Masipa: the state has to prove there is a mental intention to possess the firearm or ammunition to secure a conviction. https://twitter.com/SmithInAfrica/status/510338552732086272 https://twitter.com/SJFindlay/status/510338262641442816 Masipa: the accused made admissions that he did not have a licence for the firearm ammunition, but he didn’t contravene the act. https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510337644807864320 https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510337563450945536 https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510337021299396609 https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510336937052631040 https://twitter.com/GeraldImrayAP/status/510336690666602496 Masipa: “The accused’s version was that he was angry with Fresco for having handed him a loaded firearm.” He reprimanded him. Masipa: He may not have intentionally pulled the trigger. However, that does not absolve him from the crime of negligence. Masipa: Accused admitted that he took gun from Fresco, but said he didn’t know it was loaded at the time that he took it. Masipa: In January 2013, while having lunch in a restaurant in Joburg, handled a firearm of one of his friends and a shot was discharged. https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510335234597212160 https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510334871353708544 Masipa: Taylor was a former girlfriend. She said the relationship ended when the accused was unfaithful. She was clearly hurt. Masipa: Evidence has ring of truth, but in a criminal case that is never the end of the matter. Masipa: Like the evidence of Fresco, the evidence of Taylor needs to be approached with a degree of caution. Masipa: Taylor was a former girlfriend of the accused. It is common cause that the relationship did not end amicably. https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510333969590943744 Masipa:: Mendacity on one aspect of a witness’s evidence does not mean" that all the evidence is tainted, but it does mean exercise caution. Masipa: Fresco proved to be a dishonest witness. Masipa: Their versions of where, how and why it happened were so different it was tempting to think they described different incidents. Masipa: State counsel disagreed, saying there was no reason why Fresco and Taylor would want to implicate the accused. Masipa: The assessment of the evidence. It was pointed out by counsel for the accused that Taylor and Fresco contradicted each other. Masipa: Fresco denied that the incident happened in the manner described by Taylor. Masipa: Fresco said he asked the accused what he was doing after the shot was fired. Masipa: while Fresco confirmed the incident he had a different version of events Masipa: Taylor said after the shot, both Fresco and the accused laughed about the incident. 1 PM: Masipa: The state called Darren Fresco and Samantha Taylor to testify. They alleged Oscar shot out the sunroof. https://twitter.com/barrybateman/status/510331288818298880 12.58 PM: Looks like there are double the amount of police officers in the courtroom. Judge Masipa has arrived in the court……. https://twitter.com/BBCAndrewH/status/510330059761410049 https://twitter.com/SmithInAfrica/status/510328050123571200 https://twitter.com/barrybateman/status/510326278151766017 https://twitter.com/MandyWiener/status/510293745653530624 10.53 AM: https://twitter.com/ewnreporter/status/510293302827315200 Oscar Pistorius was cleared on Thursday of murdering girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp but the Olympic and Paralympic track star faces a troubled night after the South African judge adjourned for the day before ruling on a charge of culpable homicide. The double-amputee, once one of the biggest names in world athletics, has reason to fear a guilty verdict after Judge Thokozile Masipa adjourned seconds after saying key elements of the culpable homicide charge were satisfied when he shot Steenkamp dead on Valentine’s Day last year. [caption id=“attachment_1709069” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  File picture of Oscar Pistorius. Reuters[/caption] “I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. It is clear that his conduct was negligent,” she told the packed courtroom before adjourning until Friday. She also said he had not acted “reasonably”. Earlier, Masipa ruled that prosecutors, led by the combative Gerrie Nel, had failed to prove the 27-year-old intended to kill Steenkamp after an argument. The defence said Pistorius shot Steenkamp as a result of a tragic accident after mistaking her for an intruder hiding behind a locked toilet door. As Masipa delivered her not-guilty decision on the primary charge of premeditated murder, Pistorius, who would have faced at least 25 years behind bars if convicted, sat sobbing in the dock, tears streaming down his cheeks. Culpable homicide - the South African equivalent of Britain’s manslaughter - carries up to 15 years in prison but has no minimum sentence. Reuters