Court is back in session.
Judge: Counsel for the defense, submitted that the accused when approached the bathroom did not intend to shoot.
Judge: Defense counsel argued that he fired his weapon because he felt vulnerable.
Judge: I proceed to deal with, did the accused lack criminal capacity at the time of the defense.
Judge: The accused repeatedly told the court that he had not time to think before he fired the shots or he had no intention to fire the shots.
Judge: In support of the defense as I said early, Dr, Vorster said that the accused suffered from an anxiety disorder. It then became necessary for the court to refer the accused for observation.
Judge: Dr. Kotze, Dr. Fyn and Dr. Pretorius were the doctors appointed to the observation.
Judge: They combined a joint report of their findings.
Judge: The accused did not suffer from a mental disorder.
Judge: "6.1, OP did not suffer from a mental defect or a disorder at the time of the offense."
Judge: "He was capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act"
Judge: Both the state and the defense accepted the findings.
Judge: However, counsel for the defense, in the face of the evidence, Prof Derman.
Judge: Counsel submitted in the issue as to whether the court should consider whether the accused lacked responsibility due to the "fight or flight" response.
Judge: Counsel for the defense further submitted for the findings that the accused could not be found guilty for the response caused by this reponse.
Judge: This gives an impression that the accused had no action in the firing of the 4 shots. There was no lapse of memory of the accused.
Judge: On his own version, he froze and then decided to go to the bathroom.
Judge: He knew that the window was open. This is inconsistent with lack of criminal capacity.
Judge: Any-way the experts have already given evidence on this matter.
Judge: This court is satisfied that the accused could distinguish between right or wrong.
Judge: The second possible defense. Counsel for the defense submitted that the accused fired the shots as he thought the intruders were coming out of the toilet towards him.
Judge: ".....that split moment I believed there was someone coming out to attack me", "I did not think"
Judge: Later he still says "I though that somebody was coming out to attack me", in the same breath "I never intended to shoot anyone, I got a fright and shot"
Judge: "I shot out of fear", "I did not intend to shoot at anyone"
Judge: The question "So you never wanted to shoot at robbers coming out of the toilet?", he answered "that is correct"
Judge: He shot at what was perceived as an intruder. Counsel for the state stated that if he never intended to shoot at anyone, then you cannot rely on self-defence.
Judge: In the present case the accused version is that he had no intention to shoot some one et alone the deceased.
Judge: Yet, he approached said danger with a firearm.
Judge: It was said that he could have hit the intruder over the head. This strange conduct was explained by Prof. Derman as a "fight or flight" response.
Judge: This court also understands that a person with a disability like the accused would feel vulnerable when faced with this type of danger.
Judge: Would it be reasonable if they armed themselves with a firearm when in danger. I do not think so. The accused clearly wanted to use the firearm.
Judge: The intention to shoot does not included the intention to kill. Depending on the circumstances of the case, then a accused could be innocent or murder.
Judge: If it is reasonable possibly that he or she may be innocent.
Judge: In the same case, the court warned against the danger of isolation of either being found guilty or innocent.
Judge: In any particular case, it would depend on the nature of what is brought to the court.
Judge: This must account for all the evidence, some might be found false, or unreliable but none of it may be ignored.
Judge: The accused as a witness. The accused was a very poor witness.
Judge: While giving his evidence in chief, it flowed and went smoothly. While being cross-examined he suffered.
Judge: The accused was under medication when he gave his evidence. This argument does not make sense to me.
Judge: It was only under cross-examination that he contradicted himself.
Judge: This court was not unaware that the accused would not be the best witness due to the nature.
Judge: When someone in the position of the accused giving evidence, would be a hollowing ordeal.
Judge: In my view there was several reasons for this. He failed to listen to the questions being put to him. Often a question that required a straight forward answer, it would end in an argument.
Judge: When a court determines a guilt or other wise, the conclusion that the cause of the witness. It does not always justify the exclusion.