10:42 – Both legal teams have two weeks to state whether they intend to appeal.

10:42 – Pistorius had a brief word with his Uncle Arnold, before being led downstairs. No indication at this stage of appeal.

10:41

#OscarPistorius after sentencing.. pic.twitter.com/16QUHEMEKA

— POWER987 News (@POWER987News) October 21, 2014

10:41 – Pistorius’s continue to speak among themselves, as do the Steenkamps.

10:40 – Court adjourns.

10:39 – I wish to thank the gallery, it wasn’t an easy matter. In general, I was very pleased with the conduct of all involved.

10:39 – Masipa thanks court officials. All staff.

10:38 – “June Steenkamp looks over to see OP’s reaction. Seems v stoic as usual,” tweets Alex Crawford. 

10:37 – Brother Carl shoots a stricken, wide-eyed look at his sister Aimee, says Nastasya Tay.

10:37 – Prosecutor Gerrie Nel notes firearms controls act states OP will automatically be declared unfit to own firearm.

10:37 – OP’s head bent slightly down. Barry Steenkamp leans on the bench in front of him.

10:35 – On count 2: OP gets three years wholly suspended for five years on condition that OP isn’t found guilty of similar crime.

10:34 – On count one: maximum imprisonment of five years.

10:33 – OP asked to stand

10:33 – Masipa on firearm in restaurant: “I have taken into account that no one was hurt, although the offence was a serious one.”

10:33 – A court orderly has walked to the stairs down to the holding cells – preparing for the accused. – Barry Bateman tweets.

10:32 – Non-custodial sentence would send the wrong message but a long sentence would also be inappropriate as it would be without mercy – TM

10:31 – Particular circumstances of OP taken into account too – TM

10:31 – Taken into account seriousness of the offence which led to death of Reeva. – TM

10:30 – TM says she has weighed all the relevant factors.

10:30 –

Masipa: A sentence should not be too light or too severe.

So it’s a balancing act for her.

10:30 – TM stresses that toilet door was not opened prior to OP shooting at it. Contrasts with other case.

10:29 – TM pauses for a drink of water. She sure needs it.

10:28 – Man who shot and killed wife did plea deal with NPA – he pleaded guilty to culpable homicide, got suspended sentence

10:27 – TM turns to another past case. “Startled and afraid for his life, he discharged his firearm.” Person was not an intruder but his wife.

10:27 – TM – find degree of negligence in this matter is too severe for sentence suggested by defence

10:25 – Sentence suggested by defence witnesses NOT APPROPRIATE.

10:25 – Voster only fired one shot, aimed above, not into the door. OP deliberately fired four shots into the door. OP aimed to shoot intruder, unlike Voster. If there had been an intruder in Voster case, he could have run away whereas in OP case, the intruder wouldn’t have been able to because the space was small. OP is also trained in use of firearms. – TM

10:23 – OP KNEW there was someone behind the door. Voster did not.

10:23 – Masipa: The facts are “dissimilar” to the facts in the present case. “There are a number of important distinguishing features.”

10:22 – TM sees SOME similarities with past case but not entirely.

10:21 – Masipa: in that particular case, the individual (Voster) was sentenced to correctional supervision for 3 years.

10:21 – TM quoting sentence given to Voster, not OP. She hasn’t asked him to stand yet.

10:19 – Judge says one should strive to keep people out of prison (if they not serial criminals).

10:19 – Masipa: important factors – extent of deviation from reasonable person (gross) and consequences of conduct (severe).

10:17 – Masipa spending considerable time on the Voster case and the remorse of the accused in that matter.

10:16 – Masipa dealing with case law related to culpable homicide.

10:15 – Judge refers to case mentioned by defence where bullet fired by another who also believed there was intruder, killed child.

10:15 – TM more impressed by case presented by State.

10:14 – Masipa also points out that the ability of the accused to foresee the result of his action must also be considered.

10:13 – TM quotes case law on the degree of blame and negligence. Consequences of negligence cannot be disregarded

10:12 – Judge stresses degree of “culpability” as deciding factor for sentencing.

10:11 – TM moves onto conclusion…

10:11 – Hopefully, sentence can provide some form of closure – TM

10:11 – TM: The loss of life cannot be reversed. Nothing I say or do today can reverse what happened on 14 Feb 2013.

10:10 – Masipa: At the time the deceased met her death she was young, vivacious and full of life.

10:09 – TM: It is not wrong that the natural indignation of interested persons and community should receive some recognition.

10:08 – TM: South Africa has a constitution which applies to everyone and protects everyone including those who transgress.

10:07 – However, retribution not the same as venegance – TM

10:07 – SA has long moved from an era of dark ages of “ab eye for an eye”.

News24