Oscar Pistorius found guilty of murder

Oscar Pistorius has been convicted of murder.

The Supreme Court of Appeals changed Pistorius conviction from culpable homicide to murder overturning the decision by Judge Thokozile Masipa.

This means that Pistorius will have to face fresh sentencing which could see him face up to 15 years in jail.

According to Judge Eric Leach, Pistorius committed murder under dolus eventualis as he should have known the possibilities of killing the person behind the door regardless of their identity.

The case will be taken back to the High Court for Judge Masipa to determine new sentence.

"Guilty of murder, with the accused having criminal intent,” judge Leach told the court. “The matter is referred back to the trial court to consider an appropriate sentence.”

The court found in favour of the state in two of the three questions of law reserved by the high court to be determined by the SCA.

It found that the principles of dolus eventualis were incorrectly applied by the high court.

"The accused must have foreseen that whoever was behind the toilet door would have died and reconciled himself with that possibility," Judge of Appeal Eric Leach said in a unanimous judgment in which four other judges concurred.

Pistorius, 29, shot and killed his girlfriend Steenkamp, who was 29, through a locked door in his Pretoria home on February 14 2013.

Reeva's mother June Steenkamp, Reeva's mother, sat in the front bench of the public gallery to hear the outcome. She was hugged by longtime friend Jenny Strydom after the verdict. She smiled as she left the court..

Earlier: Oscar Pistorius judgment starts

A strong media contingent gathered at the Supreme Court of Appeal on Thursday morning to hear whether this court would find Oscar Pistorius guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp.

Appeal Judge Eric Leach started delivering the court's judgment in the National Prosecuting Authority's bid for a murder conviction at 9.45AM. The prosecutors have asked the court to reverse the Pretoria High Court's decision to find Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide and not murder.

Reeva's mother, June Steenkamp, arrived in court at 9.24AM. She greeted members of the African National Congress Women's League (ANCWL) and sat down with them in the front bench.

Members of the ANCWL attended the case daily throughout the trial in the high court in Pretoria, which started on March 3 2014.

The ANCWL insisted in the morning that it expected Pistorius to go back to jail.

Pistorius‚ 29‚ shot and killed his girlfriend Steenkamp‚ who was 29, through a locked door in his Pretoria home on February 14 2013.

He claimed he fired the four shots through the door of the toilet in the bathroom adjoining his bedroom believing that there was an intruder inside and that his life and that of Steenkamp were in danger.

Pistorius was sentenced to a five-year prison term in October last year but was released into correctional supervision this year after spending close to one year in prison.

The prosecutors asked the high court to refer certain questions of law to the SCA for consideration because it believed Judge Thokozile Masipa had erred in acquitting Pistorius of murder.

The appeal court heard arguments on November 3.

The arguments before the appeal court centred on whether the high court in Pretoria correctly applied the principles of dolus eventualis to the facts and the conduct of Pistorius. Dolus eventualis is a form of intent that means if a murder accused had foreseen the possibility that his actions may cause someone's death, reconciled himself with that and went ahead, he is guilty of murder.

In his argument for the state‚ prosecutor Gerrie Nel told the appeal court judges that Pistorius was a poor witness who relied on a plethora of defences. Nel said the defence Pistorius elected to use was rejected by the court‚ but instead the court elected another defence on his behalf and this was not allowed.

Nel agreed with Eric Leach when he asked whether Pistorius must have foreseen that his action would result in the death of a person behind the door.

“Even on the finding that he did not know it was Steenkamp behind the toilet door‚ it did not matter. Even if he was under the impression that Reeva was in bed‚ he had necessary intent to bring [about] the demise of the person behind the door‚” Leach asked‚ and Nel agreed.

Another question the state asked the court to consider was whether the high court correctly conceived and applied the legal principles pertaining to circumstantial evidence and pertaining to multiple defences by the accused.

The state wants the appeal court‚ if it finds in its favour‚ to give judgment that it believes ought to have been given at the trial court - a conviction on murder.

The legal team for Pistorius opposed the application, arguing that the prosecution was trying to appeal the high court's factual findings instead of questions of law and that was not permitted by the Criminal Procedure Act.

Defence Advocate Barry Roux‚ who endured lengthier questioning from the judges than Nel‚ denied that the high court did not apply the law correctly to the facts.

“[Judge Thokozile Masipa] made crucial factual findings. She found [Pistorius] genuinely believed his life was in danger. He genuinely believed that [Steenkamp] was in the bedroom‚” Roux said.