No the “question of law reserved” part is the basis for appeals by the prosecution: (emphasis mine)
So in this case, the prosecution applied to have that question of law reserved during the trial?
Reviving this thread to mention that Pistorius has been denied leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, which is the highest appellate court.
And to answer your question, Northern Piper, yes, I believe the prosecution had several questions of law related to dolus eventualis reserved during the trial.
Bumping thread: Pistorius has met with his victim’s father in a private meeting, which is a necessary requirement under South African law before he can apply for parole.
(And on an interesting side-note for linguists, apparently BBC runs news articles in Pidgin:
Looks like his actual sentence will be 7-8 years.
Was he on remand from 2013-2016 or some part thereof? In that case his time served would be longer.
That was fascinating to read.
According to this earlier article, he was on house arrest for at least some time. There was confusion whether that counted for purposes of parole eligibility.
The confusion stems from the fact that Pistorius’s time in prison has been broken up by appeals and by a period of house arrest.
After skimming this thread, I’ve formed the half-assed opinion that the South African Justice system don’t have a fucking clue what they are doing. Making it up as they go along.