James Grant

Translated from the Beeld (29 Oct 2014), available at: Seekoei.Beeld Story by Marida Fitzpatrick, translated (in a flash) by Darron West.

Several attempts have been made to justify the decision of Judge Masipa to acquit Oscar Pistorius of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. Regrettably, in my view, none of them are successful. Burchell* falls into the same wishful thinking errors of Taitz and Cibane, and logical error as Masipa. Burchell (and Taitz**) observe, correctly, that the […]

While Masipa J has delivered judgement in the Pistorius case, there appear to be errors of law in her judgement. These errors of law may allow the prosecution to appeal. Many commentators are saying that Masipa’s mistake was to misconceive the form of intention in our law known as dolus eventualis. A careful analysis reveals […]

DISCLAIMER This is translated and elaborated from an article, inspired by Marida Fitzpatrick, and published in the Beeld newspaper today (11 Sept 2014, see OSCAR: VAS OF VRY? http://www.beeld.com/nuus/2014-09-11-oscar-vas-of-vry via @Beeld_Nuus). It appears here subject to the disclaimer under which it was published.  To be clear,  Ulrich Roux and I wrote our respective pieces as […]

What is most important for parents, is that there is no basis recognised in law, upon which a parent may possess or distribute an image or video of his/her child that amounts to “child pornography”, simply by virtue of being a parent. If the images or videos you have of your own child amount to […]

Does James Grant think he is an alien? 1/ Pistorius needs only to raise a reasonable doubt that he intended to UNLAWFULLY kill whoever was behind the door. 2/ Intention is judged subjectively – what was he actually thinking; A doubt = a possibility. Thus a reasonable doubt = a reasonable possibility. 3/ There must […]

The finding of the panel which observed Oscar Pistorius, reported by Prosecutor Gerrie Nel, is both surprising, and unsurprising – it is both right and wrong. This is because nobody can say whether Oscar Pistorius suffered, at the relevant time (of the alleged offence), from a legally significant “mental illness or defect”. The concept is undefined in […]

In the conduct of Pistorius’s defence, through the testimony of Dr Vorster, the criminal capacity of Pistorius has been placed in issue. Criminal capacity, together with the requirement that your conduct must be voluntary, are the bases upon which our law enquires whether you are a responsible person – whether it makes any sense to […]

It is worth remembering – because this issue continues to be misunderstood: one may intentionally kill another human being – so long as you are justified (such as in self/private defence) and you know/believe you are justified. If you are not justified (such as you are not under attack), you are only liable to a […]

All crimes/offences have an “unlawfulness” requirement built in. You are only liable to criminal punishment if your conduct is “unlawful”. Unlawfulness is judged by the “legal convictions of the community” but ultimately, by the values in the Constitution. Thus the unlawfulness requirement in every offence is really a requirement that one’s conduct must be unconstitutional. […]