Meanwhile, the athlete will also be approaching the Constitutional Court to overturn the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision to charge him with murder, dolus eventualis.
Judge Aubrey Ledwaba on Tuesday postponed the case to April 18, 2016, and released Pistorius on bail of R10 000.
He ruled that Pistorius submit to house arrest but may leave his home between 7am and noon, though only to travel in a 20km radius of his home. Ledwaba added that Pistorius be electronically monitored.
Pistorius was also told he could only leave his home with permission from the investigating officers, and that he may not leave the magisterial district of Tshwane.
Pistorius was convicted at the Pretoria High Court last year of the culpable homicide of his model girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, whom he claims he mistook for an intruder at his Pretoria East home on Valentine’s Day 2013.
The State revealed shortly after the conviction it would attempt to overturn the culpable homicide conviction at the Supreme Court of Appeal in a bid to charge the athlete with murder.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein overturned Pistorius’ initial conviction and essentially charged him with murder for killing Steenkamp.
In a fairly brief judgment by Judge Eric Leach, Pistorius was found to have been indirectly murderous in his actions by firing four shots onto a closed bathroom door when not knowing who or if anyone was behind it.
“The person must have been reconciled with the foreseeable outcome,” said Judge Leach, who said Pistorius was guilty of murder, dolus eventualis.
Pistorius was then ordered to return to the High Court in Pretoria for a new sentencing, meaning his current sentence of house arrest until 2019 was completely overturned.
On Tuesday morning, Pistorius arrived at the court to find out firstly if he would receive bail pending his new sentencing and the date for when those proceedings would take place.
State prosecutor Gerrie Nel began the application by establishing Pistorius was a convicted murderer awaiting sentence.
Nel announced that the State would not be opposing the bail application.
Pistorius’ lawyer, Barry Roux, handed up an affidavit signed by Pistorius as part of his reasoning for why he should be granted bail, which was partially read out to the court.
Roux argued that when Pistorius was initially charged with pre-meditated murder, the athlete was granted bail in 2013.
He said Pistorius abided by all the bail conditions, and was granted bail again after he was convicted of culpable homicide in 2014.
Roux said the athlete had so far served his sentence upon being given five years in prison last year, and was released on correctional supervision this year.
The advocate then said Pistorius would agree to maintaining his house arrest with even stricter conditions pending his next sentencing, and that he would only leave his home with permission from the investigating officers.
Pistorius also offered R10 000 to be paid as his bail, despite the fact that his previous bail was R1 million.
Roux said this was because the athlete no longer had that kind of money available to him.
Roux then revealed the defence would be asking for leave to appeal the Supreme Court of Appeal’s murder conviction at the Constitutional Court, asking the bail be held until those proceedings be completed and if unsuccessful, the sentencing proceedings as well.
The lawyer then said that Pistorius had compelling reasons for being granted bail, such as his disability, fame and adherence to the previous bail conditions.
Nel said he was comfortable with Pistorius remaining under house arrest as he was being electronically monitored, though he claimed he was unconvinced of the defence’s chances of success at the Constitutional Court. This was his reasoning for choosing not to oppose the bail application.
However, when questioned by Judge Ledwaba about the strictness of the bail conditions, Nel said it was of utmost importance that Pistorius be monitored 24 hours a day.
He said the seriousness of the newer conviction meant there should be “serious bail conditions”.
Nel also argued that Pistorius had links overseas, though with his minimal finances, it was unlikely he would abscond.
However, he argued he should not be able to move outside of a 10-kilometre radius from his home if Judge Ledwaba allowed him permission to occasionally leave his home.
In his ruling, Judge Ledwaba said that while the defence and State had made an arrangement regarding Pistorius’ bail, it was still up to the court to decide on the issue.
“Since the applicant attended court, he has proved he is not a flight risk,” said Ledwaba.
He believed Pistorius would obey the bail conditions set and that it would not be in the interest of justice to not allow Pistorius to leave his home.
