Oscar Pistorius, a South African sprinter who competed at the Olympic Games, was convicted of murder for the death of Reeva Steenkamp in Pretoria in February 2013. The case went through five stages in the courts. The trial court at Pretoria found him not guilty of murder and guilty of culpable homicide in September 2014. The Supreme Court of Appeal replaced that verdict with murder, with criminal intent in the form of dolus eventualis, in December 2015. The trial court then imposed six years in July 2016, and the Supreme Court of Appeal increased the sentence to 13 years and 5 months in November 2017. The Constitutional Court declined to hear a further application in 2018. Pistorius was released on parole on January 5, 2024 and remains under supervision until his sentence expires in 2029.
The death occurred in Pretoria on February 14, 2013. Pistorius was charged with murder and tried in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria. He said he had mistaken her for an intruder. The courts' findings concern his state of mind: what he foresaw, and whether his belief that an intruder was present could support the defense he raised.
The trial court gave its judgment in September 2014. On September 12, 2014 the presiding judge found Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide. She ruled that the State had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill, and he was not convicted of murder. The National Prosecuting Authority said it was disappointed that it could not secure a conviction on the original murder charge, and called culpable homicide a serious crime. On a separate count from an incident in Johannesburg in January 2013, he was convicted of a further offense and was found not guilty on the other related counts.
On October 21, 2014 the court sentenced him to five years' imprisonment for culpable homicide. For the Johannesburg count it imposed three years, suspended for five years. The sentence of five years was imposed under section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows a prisoner to be considered for correctional supervision after serving part of the term.
The Correctional Supervision and Parole Board decided on June 5, 2015 to place him under correctional supervision with effect from August 21, 2015. On August 19, 2015 the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services referred the decision to the Correctional Supervision and Parole Review Board, noting that the Correctional Services Act requires an offender to serve at least one-sixth of the sentence before correctional supervision is considered, and that Pistorius had served just over six months. The decision was suspended until the review board ruled. In October 2015 the review board set aside the original decision as premature and sent the matter back to the parole board, and it directed that Pistorius receive psychotherapy. Later that month he was moved from custody to correctional supervision, having served about 12 months of the five-year term.
The State reserved questions of law for the Supreme Court of Appeal. On December 3, 2015 a bench of five judges set aside the conviction for culpable homicide and the sentence on that count, and replaced it with a conviction for murder, with criminal intent in the form of dolus eventualis. The court held that he had foreseen the possibility of death and reconciled himself to it, and that the defense he had raised could not succeed. It sent the matter back to the trial court to consider sentence afresh.
The High Court at Pretoria considered sentence afresh, and on July 6, 2016 it imposed six years' imprisonment "for the murder dolus eventualis of the deceased." It found substantial and compelling circumstances that justified a departure from the prescribed minimum of 15 years. It listed among the mitigating factors his belief that an intruder was present, accepted his apology as genuine, and held that he was a good candidate for rehabilitation and unlikely to reoffend. The court rejected the State's argument for a sentence based on direct intent (dolus directus), and held that public opinion had no role in the sentence. The judgment records that he had already served 12 months.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng, appealed against the sentence. The appeal was heard on November 3, 2017, and judgment was delivered on November 24, 2017 in Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius (950/2016) [2017] ZASCA 158. The order reads:
1. "The application for leave to appeal is granted." 2. "The appeal against sentence is upheld." 3. "The sentence imposed by the court a quo in respect of murder is set aside and substituted with the following: The respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 13 years and five months."
The court held that the murder conviction fell under section 51(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, which prescribes 15 years for a first offender unless there are substantial and compelling circumstances. It held that "there are no substantial and compelling circumstances which can justify the departure from the prescribed minimum sentence," found that the trial court had given too much weight to his personal circumstances and to rehabilitation as against retribution and deterrence, and held that he had not shown genuine remorse. The six-year sentence was "shockingly lenient to a point where it has the effect of trivialising this serious offence." The court took the time he had already served into account against the 15-year minimum, which produced the term of 13 years and 5 months.
Pistorius applied to the Constitutional Court for leave to appeal against the increased sentence. The court's order is dated March 28, 2018 and was made public on April 9, 2018. It granted condonation for the late filing and dismissed the application on the ground that it "does not engage this court's jurisdiction." The sentence of 13 years and 5 months therefore stood.
Pistorius was first considered for parole at a hearing in March 2023. The parole board refused it, finding that he had not completed the minimum detention period, and relied on a clarification of the sentence that the Supreme Court of Appeal had issued three days before the hearing. The Constitutional Court later ruled that the board's finding was a mistake, and a new hearing was held. On November 24, 2023 the Correctional Supervision and Parole Board granted parole with effect from January 5, 2024.
The Department of Correctional Services issued a statement on January 3, 2024 confirming that the decision of November 24, 2023, "effectively from 5 January 2024, remains valid and is to be enforced." He would be placed under Community Corrections and "monitored until the expiry date of his sentence in 2029." The department listed the conditions: he must be at home during set hours, he must take part in the programmes the parole board specified, and he may not give media interviews. The department said his public profile did not entitle him to different treatment, and that it would not disclose transport arrangements or the time of his release. The programmes cover anger management and violence against women, and the conditions include community service, unannounced visits by officials and no leaving his district without permission. He was released on January 5, 2024, after nearly nine years served, and lives in Gauteng province. The department stated that parole does not mean he has finished serving his sentence; the remainder runs until December 2029.
In January 2026, two years after his release, the conditions were unchanged and he remained on parole under Community Corrections.
South African law distinguishes murder from culpable homicide by the accused's state of mind. Intent for murder can take the form of dolus eventualis, which the Supreme Court of Appeal tested by asking whether the accused himself foresaw the possibility of death and reconciled himself to it. The 2014 and 2015 judgments divide on that line: the trial court found that the State had not proved intent, and the Supreme Court of Appeal held that, on a subjective test, intent in the form of dolus eventualis was established.
Section 51(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act prescribes a minimum of 15 years for murder of this kind committed by a first offender, unless the court finds substantial and compelling circumstances. The 2016 and 2017 sentences differ on exactly that question: the trial court found such circumstances and imposed six years, and the Supreme Court of Appeal found none and set 15 years as the measure, reduced to 13 years and 5 months for the time already served.
Parole follows its own rules. The 2015 correctional supervision decision was suspended and then set aside because the Correctional Services Act requires one-sixth of a sentence to be served first. For serious offenders, parole eligibility under the rules applied in 2023 begins after half the sentence has been served, and the March 2023 refusal rested on the minimum detention period.
The courts did not agree on what Pistorius intended. The trial court in 2014 accepted that he genuinely believed an intruder was present and used that to exclude direct intent; the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2015 held that the belief lacked a factual foundation and that his evidence was contradictory, and entered a conviction for murder on the basis of dolus eventualis. The courts also differed on remorse: the trial court in 2016 accepted his apology as genuine, and the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2017 held that he had not shown genuine remorse. Both questions were settled by the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgments, and the Constitutional Court did not disturb them.
February 14, 2013: The death in Pretoria.
September 12, 2014: Trial court finds him guilty of culpable homicide.
October 21, 2014: Sentenced to five years for culpable homicide, and to three years suspended for five years on a separate count.
June 5, 2015: Parole board decides on correctional supervision from August 21, 2015.
August 19, 2015: Minister refers the decision to the review board, which sets it aside in October 2015.
December 3, 2015: Supreme Court of Appeal substitutes a conviction for murder (dolus eventualis).
July 6, 2016: Trial court imposes six years.
November 3, 2017: Sentence appeal heard.
November 24, 2017: Supreme Court of Appeal sets the sentence at 13 years and 5 months.
March 28, 2018: Constitutional Court order dismissing his application for leave to appeal.
March 2023: Parole refused for not having completed the minimum detention period.
November 24, 2023: Parole granted, effective January 5, 2024.
January 5, 2024: Released on parole; Community Corrections until the sentence expires in 2029.
January 2026: Parole conditions unchanged.