Judge grants bail to Oscar Pistorius following culpable homicide verdict - live

Chaotic scenes outside the court as Oscar Pistorius left the building. He will return to the home of his uncle and aunt, Arnold and Lois Pistorius, ahead of sentencing on 13 October, when he will find out if he is to receive a custodial sentence.

Nathi Mncube, spokesperson for the National Prosecuting Authority, has put out this statement on Twitter, defending the actions of the state in pursuing the murder charge:

The National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa respects the findings of the court today.

However, from the beginning the prosecutors held the view that there was sufficient evidence to secure a successful prosecution on the charges that were preferred against the accused.

We respect the court decision to convict the accused on culpable homicide, which is in fact a serious crime. We are, however, disappointed that we were not successful in securing a conviction on the original charge of premeditated murder.

NPA will await until the matter is concluded and will then comment on any further legal steps that might be envisaged.

Further, NPA is satisfied with the manner in which the prosecution team prosecuted the case. They displayed the highest degree of professionalism and their ethical conduct could not be faulted throughout the trial.

They have served as good ambassadors for the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa and the fight for justice.

Oscar Pistorius has now left the courtroom.

His uncle Arnold Pistorius will make a statement on behalf of the family in about 20 minutes’ time. I’ll cover it here.

My colleague David Smith, who is in Pretoria, sends this reaction from the Steenkamp family:

Asked if the family was disappointed by the outcome, their lawyer Dup de Bruyn said: “There’s no comment at the moment.”

The Steenkamps would give interviews to media organisations after Friday’s hearing according to their present contractual arrangements, he added.

Reporters in court in Pretoria say the Pistorius family is expected to make a statement in around half an hour.

Masipa asks Roux to talk to Arnold Pistorius (“the person looking after him”) to make sure there are “no further complications” when the court resumes for sentencing on 13 October.

The court rises. Proceedings today are finished.

Masipa says the onus is on the state to persuade her it is not in the interests of justice to extend bail.

She says she accepts the defence claim that he sold his home to pay his legal costs.

Masipa begins by summarising the objections of the state to the bail application:

1. Pistorius has now been convicted of “a very serious offence”.
2. He has, during the course of the trial, sold three properties and now owns no property in South Africa.
3. During the course of the trial, Pistorius was involved in an “incident” in a nightclub. His family made a statement to the press admitting he was “self-harming”.
4. The mental health evaluation deemed him a potential suicide risk.

South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority has said it is “disappointed” by the failure to convict Pistorius of the more serious charge of murder. Speaking outside the court, Nathi Mncube, spokesperson for the NPA, said:

We respect the judgment that has been delivered. We believed in this instance there was enough evidence to secure a conviction under pre-meditated murder.

Of course we are disappointed. We are disappointed we did not secure a conviction under premeditated murder and also there was acquittal on the other two [firearms] charges.

The matter has not been concluded yet, we are still waiting for a sentence to be imposed.

He said it was too early to decide whether prosecutors would launch an appeal.

The judge is running late again. Pistorius is back in the courtroom, having spent some time in the holding cells. Reporters in court say that lawyers for both sides have been called to the judge’s chambers. June Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp’s mother, has not returned to court.

Pistorius would be allowed to compete in future sporting events, the International Paralympic Committee has said.

The Press Association files this report:

The International Paralympic Committee will allow Oscar Pistorius to compete in the future after the movement’s most famous athlete was found guilty of the culpable homicide of his girlfriend.

Pistorius will be sentenced at a later date but the IPC said they would allow him to return to the sport.

Craig Spence, the IPC’s director of media and communications, told BBC Radio 5 Live: “Oscar’s done a great deal for the Paralympic movement, he’s been an inspiration to millions, but obviously his priority now is to see [what] the judge decides. And then if he wishes to resume his athletics career then we wouldn’t step in his way, we would allow him to compete again in the future.”

The IPC’s chief executive Xavier Gonzalez said Pistorius had been a “fundamental ambassador” for the movement in the run-up to the London 2012 Olympics but that the trial had not had a negative impact on the Paralympic sport.

Gonzalez said: “Since it started more than two years ago, this trial has not had any impact on our activities. We have been very clear in differentiating our work from what was happening in the life of one individual.

“That will not change with the verdict today. The trial has not had any negative impact on the Paralympic movement. Since London with Sochi in 2014 we have seen an incredible growth in all aspects of our activities and we look forward very positively to Rio and Pyeong Chang.

“Oscar was a fundamental ambassador of the Paralympic movement in the period between 2008 and 2012. Since then the Paralympic movement has many other ambassadors and many other athletes that have been recognised globally and we believe that will continue growing as we lead up to 2016.”

Pistorius is back in the courtroom, having spent part of this adjournment in the holding cells:

The court has paused for the judge to consider whether to allow Pistorius to stay on bail. He has been on bail, living at the home of his uncle, Arnold Pistorius, for 18 months.

The defence says he has complied with all bail conditions so far and there is no reason to revoke the bail now he has been convicted of culpable homicide and a separate firearms charge.

The state opposes bail. It says Pistorius poses a greater flight risk because he has now been convicted of a serious offence. He has sold his property (the defence says this was to pay legal fees) and so does not have financial ties to South Africa. Prosecutor Gerrie Nel said an incident in which Pistorius was thrown out of a nightclub in July and a mental health report that concluded he was at risk of suicide are both indications that bail should be revoked.

Judge Masipa should be giving her ruling at 12.30pm South African time (11.30BST).

The Guardian video team has put together this short film of the judge handing down her verdicts:

And David Smith has also written more about Reeva Steenkamp. For much of the trial, she has been referred to as “Pistorius’ girlfriend” or “the deceased”.

Reeva Steenkamp was born in Cape Town on 19 August 1983, and moved to the city of Port Elizabeth as a child. She graduated with a law degree from the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University but was spotted by a talent scout and launched a career in modelling.

She publicly denounced violence against women, and on the day she died she was due to give an inspirational talk at a school in Johannesburg.

Kerry Smith knew Reeva for four years at university when they were law students and, after drifting apart, they renewed their friendship via Facebook. She still becomes emotional when she hears their favourite songs – Beyoncé’s Me, Myself and I and OutKast’s Hey Ya! – on the radio.

“We loved Beyoncé. We used to call her Bouncy. When I hear the songs, it’s not a sullen emotion that comes over me. It’s sad but it’s happy-sad. I remember the good things.”

My colleague David Smith has filed this report on the effects of the long and often trial on the Steenkamp family – in particular, her parents, June and Barry:

June, 67, attended almost every day of Pistorius’s trial, while her husband Barry, 71, who recently suffered a stroke, followed it on TV and joined her for the first time for closing arguments last month.

The rest of the world has been watching, debating and tweeting the case, but for the Steenkamps it has meant constantly reliving the night of their 29-year-old daughter’s death.

“It doesn’t go away,” said Barry’s brother Mike Steenkamp. “The experience is a daily occurrence. It’s not something you sweep under the carpet and it’s gone. It’s up in your face all the time. As it goes on, flashes of Reeva keep coming back.”

The International Paralympic Committee (IPC) has put out a statement following the conviction of Pistorius:

Following today’s verdict, our thoughts remain with all those who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, in particular the family and friends of Reeva Steenkamp, who sadly lost her life in this incident.

Throughout this case, the IPC has stressed the importance of differentiating between Oscar’s contribution to the Paralympic Movement and his private life.

As a sports organisation, it would be unwise for the IPC to comment on the conclusion of a court case that is not related to sport.

There is likely to be some disquiet about the reading out in court – and to the worldwide television audience – of Arnold Pistorius’ full address, where Oscar Pistorius is currently living:

The judge asks Nel whether there is dispute over why Pistorius sold his home. Nel says he doesn’t have any evidence but he can draw an inference that he sold it so he did not have to stay in South Africa.

Roux is on his feet again. He says the original bail granted was for a more serious allegation – premeditated murder – than the eventual conviction. He complied with all bail conditions.

He says Pistorius accepts he cannot go to public places such as the nightclub. That was a mistake.

He adds that Pistorius sold his property out of need – he had to pay for his legal costs. He is not planning to flee the country.

Roux says there is no basis to think Pistorius would kill himself ahead of sentencing.

Nel says it is not in the interests of justice to allow someone convicted of negligent killing to be released on bail.

Nel says that since bail was initially granted, Pistorius has sold his house. He does not have a property now, and lives with family.

While on bail, he was involved in an incident at a nightclub, in which he was thrown out of the club. (You can read details of that incident here.) Nel refers to the press release put out by Pistorius’ family after that, which refers to his “self-harming behaviour”.

Nel says the report from the mental health evaluation that said Pistorius was a suicide risk.

Gerrie Nel, lead prosecutor, speaks now.

He wants to put “certain factors” before the court. He says this is a serious conviction, “he caused the death of an innocent woman”.

“Lengthy imprisonment” is probable, he says.

Pistorius knows for a fact he has been convicted. Before, on bail, he thought he might be acquitted.

Roux says Pistorius has complied with all his bail conditions and there is no reason to revoke it.

He says detaining Pistorius would make it very difficult for the defence team to prepare its submissions for sentencing.

Roux says it is “premature” to consider a likely sentence.

He says the onus is on the state to argue why Pistorius should not get bail.

The Pistorius family has indicated to reporters in the courtroom that they will make a statement at some point. It is likely to be made by Arnold Pistorius, who has spoken for his nephew before.

The five-minute break has gone on rather longer – Gerrie Nel and Barry Roux have been called to the judge’s chambers. It is possible that decisions are being made about dates for sentencing. We could also hear a fresh application for bail today.

Some more information on sentencing – which might not come for a few more weeks:

Reporters in the courtroom say that Barry Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp’s father, has left.

June Steenkamp, her mother, is talking with members of the ANC Women’s League, who have supported her throughout the trial.

Oscar Pistorius is talking quietly with his uncle, Arnold Pistorius, and his lawyers. Henke Pistorius, his father, from whom – he told the court – he is estranged, is present but has not approached his son.

My colleague David Smith, who is in court in Pretoria, has filed this report:

The Olympic and Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide for the fatal shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp.

The guilty verdict on the manslaughter charge, a day after the judge Thokozile Masipa cleared him of murder, means Pistorius could receive anything from 15 years in prison to a suspended sentence, which would potentially allow the double amputee a chance to resurrect his sporting career. The court will resume for sentencing at a later date.

Masipa said on the first day of delivering her verdict that it was clear Pistorius acted unlawfully in opening fire at his home, but she cleared him of the murder charges, for which she said the evidence was “purely circumstantial”.

Masipa said a “reasonable person” would not have fired four shots into the toilet cubicle, and that Pistorius acted “too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear his conduct was negligent.”

Pistorius has said he mistook Steenkamp for an intruder when he shot four times through a locked bathroom door, killing her almost instantly.

He was cleared of firing a firearm through a sunroof and of illegal possession of ammunition, but found guilty of illegally discharging a firearm in a crowded restaurant in January 2013, weeks before Steenkamp’s death.

The maximum prison sentence for culpable homicide is 15 years, but there is no minimum term and the sentence is at the discretion of the judge.

The second count on which he has been found guilty – discharging a firearm in a public place – carries a maximum jail term of five years.

Both state and defence would be expected to make submissions to the judge ahead of her decision on sentencing, which will not be today.

A reminder – we will probably not see sentencing today.

Given the two convictions, it is likely that Pistorius will have to reapply for bail (which could happen today), since he will potentially be more of a flight risk. There will then be an adjournment, probably for a few weeks, before further arguments and sentencing.

Pistorius also has the option to appeal the convictions, so could potentially remain at liberty for months while that process takes place.

The implications of the verdict are sinking in for those in the courtroom:

Judge Masipa takes a five-minute break to see counsel in chambers.

On the issue of indemnity for Fresco for the restaurant incident, Masipa allows him indemnity from prosecution.

In closing arguments, Barry Roux, lead counsel for the defence, said the starting point for this trial should have been a charge of culpable homicide, rather than murder. Masipa made it clear that, although the state did not have to prove a motive for murder, there was no evidence in front of the court to say that Pistorius wanted to kill Steenkamp.

But her interpretation that a reasonable person would have foreseen that shooting four times through the door would kill the person behind it – but to clear Pistorius because he did not foresee this – is likely to spark much debate and criticism.

Some observations from reporters in court in Pretoria as Pistorius was found not guilty of murder, but guilty of the culpable homicide – manslaughter – of Reeva Steenkamp:

The court moves straight on to address the question of whether witness Darren Fresco should receive indemnity from prosecution for the evidence he gave. Masipa earlier called him “dishonest”.

The judge now goes on to summarise what we’ve just heard from her about the other three counts. It looks as if we will get formal verdicts very soon. She is likely to ask Pistorius to stand to hear them.

Moving on to culpable homicide, Masipa says Pistorius acted negligently.

A reasonable person, with a similar disability, would have foreseen that the person behind the door would be killed, and the accused failed to take action to avoid this.

The judge is now giving detailed legal explanations for why she has decided to acquit Pistorius of these murder charges. She will be aware of the criticism following yesterday’s proceedings, of course.

She says Pistorius cannot be found guilty of murder by dolus directus (premeditated) or dolus eventualis (that he foresaw that the shooting would lead to death).

It cannot be said that he foresaw that the deceased or anyone else would be killed when he fired shots at the toilet door.

Masipa now recaps the four counts against Pistorius and her findings.

She says Pistorius’ account of what happened on the night he shot Reeva Steenkamp can “reasonably possibly be true”.

She said there was no basis for the court to rule that Pistorius wanted to kill Steenkamp – no proof of motive.

Masipa says there would need to be intention to possess ammunition illegally in the legal sense. It is possible to possess a firearm innocently – for example, picking up a gun to return it to its owner.

Masipa moves on to the final count against Pistorius.

Illegal possession of ammunition: Pistorius is charged with being in possession of .38 ammunition; he does not have a licence for a gun that takes that ammunition, a permit to be in possession of it or a dealer’s licence. Pistorius told the court the bullets belonged to his father and he had them for safe-keeping. His estranged father declined to sign an affidavit confirming this.

Masipa: He may not have intentionally pulled the trigger … That does not absolve him from the crime of negligence.

The incident in Tashas restaurant took place in January 2013, only weeks before the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp.

Masipa moves on to another charge.

Count 3 is a charge of discharging firearms in public. The prosecution says he discharged a firearm at a restaurant in January 2013. Pistorius said Fresco had passed him the loaded gun and denies he pulled the trigger. In closing arguments, defence counsel Barry Roux said Pistorius had made a mistake and should be found guilty of a lesser charge of negligently discharging the firearm.

Masipa moves on to the evidence of Samantha Taylor.

Taylor was a former girlfriend of the accused. It is common cause that the relationship did not end amicably .

It was clear … that she had been hurt by the manner in which the relationship had terminated.

But Masipa says this does not mean it would have affected the evidence she gave, or encouraged her to give false testimony.

She says Taylor’s version “has a ring of truth”.

But she says the question is whether the state has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Masipa says both Fresco and Taylor accused Pistorius of firing the gun, “but there the similarities ended”. She says it was as if “they were talking about different incidents”.

She says Fresco was “not an impressive witness at all”. He was “dishonest”. She repeats what she said yesterday in relation to Pistorius’ “untruthfulness” on the witness stand: that mendacity in one part of testimony doesn’t mean it should all be disregarded.

However, she says caution is warranted in Fresco’s case due to the gaps and errors in his evidence.

Masipa points out that, in relation to the firing through the sunroof incident, the versions given by Pistorius, his former girlfriend Samantha Taylor, and his friend Darren Fresco, all differed.

Pistorius denied firing a shot through the open sunroof of the car. The state said he did, and that it was an indication of his recklessness with firearms.

The fact that Masipa has moved on from count 1 – the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp – suggests she has nothing further to say about her reasoning on that verdict. It looks as if we will hear verdicts on all four counts together, once she has explained her thinking on all four. This strongly suggests that she will deliver a guilty verdict on the culpable homicide charge, given her acknowledgement that Pistorius acted “unlawfully”, “too hastily” and was “negligent”.

Masipa apologises: she will deal with count 2 first. This is another charge of discharging firearms in public. Pistorius is accused of firing a gun through a car sunroof while he was with Fresco and Pistorius’ then girlfriend Samantha Taylor in November 2012. The athlete says he became angry after a police officer inspected his gun when the car was stopped for speeding; the gun was apparently lying on a car seat. But he denies firing a gun. Both Taylor and Fresco say he did.

Masipa moves on to further counts – it looks as if she will return to the culpable homicide verdict later.

Count 3 is a charge of discharging firearms in public. The prosecution says he discharged a firearm at a restaurant in January 2013. Pistorius said his friend Darren Fresco had passed him the loaded gun and denies he pulled the trigger. In closing arguments, defence counsel Barry Roux said Pistorius had made a mistake and should be found guilty of a lesser charge of negligently discharging the firearm.

Even if the judge convicts Pistorius of a crime today – be it culpable homicide for the death of Reeva Steenkamp, and/or any of the other firearms offences – we will not see sentencing today.

If he is convicted, it is likely that he will have to reapply for bail (which could happen today), since he will potentially be more of a flight risk. There will then be an adjournment, probably for a few weeks, before further arguments and sentencing.

Pistorius would also have the option to appeal so could potentially remain at liberty for months or even years.

Reeva Steenkamp’s family and friends are in court to hear the conclusion of the verdict. June and Barry Steenkamp, Reeva Steenkamp’s parents, were in court yesterday to hear the judge say there was not sufficient evidence to convict Pistorius of the murder of their daughter.

Newspapers in South Africa this morning are – unsurprisingly – dominated by yesterday’s indication by Judge Masipa that Pistorius is not guilty of murder:

But there are continuing questions over Masipa’s conclusion that this was not murder by dolus eventualis – that he foresaw the consequences of shooting through the door could lead to death but went ahead anyway. Some commentators believe she has wrongly interpreted the law. And there are suggestions the decision to clear him of murder could face challenge:

Pistorius has arrived at the high court: