We're going to wrap up our live blog coverage of today's Oscar Pistorius bail hearing. Here's a summary of where things stand:
Pistorius, who is charged with the premeditated murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, was released on 1m rand bail, with many conditions. He left court with his family and is staying at an uncle's home in a suburb of Pretoria. He is to next appear in court on 4 June.
Two representatives of the Steenkamp family in court greeted the decision tearfully. A friend of the family said "we trust and hope that justice will prevail."
The Pistorius family cheered as the decision was read, one yelling "Yes!" Oscar Pistorius wept at times as magistrate Desmond Nair explained his decision.
Nair said he did not think Pistorius was a flight risk, he did not think the prosecution had shown that the athlete had a propensity for violence and he did not think there was evidence of likely public outrage if Pistorius was released. He did not think the prosecution's case was so strong that Pistorius' only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.
Nair also pointed out holes in Pistorius’ story which may prove important when the case comes to trial. He asked why Pistorius had not ascertained Steenkamp's wherabouts, why he had not verified who was in the toilet and why Steenkamp did not scream back from the toilet, among other questions.
David Smith, who attended the bail hearing, describes the scene:
There were smiles of relief from Pistorius's family, who gathered in a circle to pray, and a shout of "yes!" from friends who leaped to their feet in the charged courtroom.
Speaking on behalf of Pistorius's family, his uncle Arnold told reporters: "We are relieved of the fact that Oscar got bail today. But at the same time we are in mourning for the death of Reeva with her family...
"As the family, we know Oscar's version of what happened that tragic night and we know that that is the truth and that will prevail in the coming court case."
Oscar Pistorius leaves the Pretoria magistrate's court with his family. Photograph: TJ Lemon/EPA Photograph: TJ Lemon/EPA
The bail decision was greeted jubilantly by some Pistorius supporters, to the dismay of the African National Congress women's league, quoted by the Globe and Mail:
ANC women's league: "What is distressing is the reaction of some menin court who jumped up and celebrated ... as if they had won a trophy"
Whatever the outcome of the Pistorius case, the Guardian's Adam Haupt writes, South Africa is a country "at war with its women":
Regardless of the circumstances of the shooting, the fact is that yet another woman met a violent end in South Africa – a country at war with its female population. Earlier this month, Bredasdorp teenager Anene Booysen was gang-raped, murdered and mutilated – a case so appalling in its brutality that it made headlines across the globe. And as extreme as this case was, such violence is not isolated.
In 1999, 14-year-old Valencia Farmer was gang-raped and murdered. At the time, we saw a great deal of media outrage at the incident – not unlike the response to the Booysen murder. But, between these two horrific events, we have seen many other instances of gender-based violence that expose the hollow nature of the righteous indignation expressed by public officials, political parties and journalists alike.
According to a 2011 survey by Statistics South Africa, 38.4% of sexual offences were committed by community members known to their victims. Furthermore, 37.2% of victims were murdered by known community members, followed by a spouse/lover (18.2%), and friends/acquaintances (12.1%). According to allAfrica.com, police statistics reveal that in South Africa seven women were murdered each day in 2011, and that one woman gets raped every 17 seconds.
He says bail is fixed at 1m rand: a cash amount of 100,000 rand to be deposited where the accused will be detained, plus a further 900,000 rand as a gurantee and surety.
Pistorius is not to return to his home. He is not to leave South Africa. He must hand over all passports and report to the Brooklyn police station between 7am and 1pm every Monday to Friday.
Pistorius has been taken down to the cells beneath the court, where he will be processed and released to his family, Lucy Bannerman of the Times reports.
Magistrate Desmond Nair has granted bail to Oscar Pistorius. These were the judge’s main reasons:
He did not think Pistorius was a flight risk.
He did not think the prosecution had shown that Pistorius had a propensity for violence.
He did not think the prosecution had shown there would be public outrage if he were released on bail.
He did not think the prosecution’s case was so strong that Pistorius’s only reasonable reaction were he released would be to flee.
But he also pointed out holes in Pistorius’s story which may prove important when the case comes to trial:
Why did he not ascertain Steenkamp's wherabouts?
Why did he not verify who was in the toilet?
Why did Steenkamp not scream back from the toilet?
Why did the deceased and the accused not escape through the bedroom door rather than venture into the toilet?
Why would the accused venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him?
And he said he had difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused slept on the other side of the bed from usual that night.
If it would evoke public outrage in any way to release Pistorius on bail, the state should have placed before me where that outrage would be, Nair says – notwithstanding protests outside the court.
Nair looks at whether the accused will flee because he is not tied to South Africa. He runs through Pistorius's strong connections to South Africa and the properties he owns in the country.
He also mentions his wealth.
He has said he would surrender his passports, Nair says, and would not apply for others while proceedings are active.
But likewise, Nair says, the state cannot equally show that its case is so strong and watertight that the applicant must come to the conclusion he should flee or evade his trial.
Nair says despite Botha's concessions the "improbabilities" in Pistorius's story "are quite pronounced".
Why did he not ascertain Steenkamp's wherabouts? Why did he not verify who was in the toilet? Why did she not scream back from the toilet? Why did the deceased and the accused not escape through the bedroom door rather than venture into the toilet? Why would the accused venture into danger knowing the intruder was in the toilet, leaving himself open to attack? He returned to the dangerous area. What if the intruder was waiting for him?
He has difficulty with the defence's version of why the accused changed his place in the bed.
Botha asked why Pistorius would charge into danger without his prostheses, Nair recalls.
Of primary importance to Nair is that Botha is not the state's case - he was the police officer first on the scene. He is not the most senior official tasked with the investigation, Nair says.
The South African police service should allocate someone to take control of the crime scene and testify in court, Nair says.
Nair says Botha conceded that it was plausible that Steenkamp could have locked the door in response to Pistorius's warnings about an intruder, but Nair says Nel pointed out she could equally have nervously come out to see what was going on.
Nair says Botha conceded that the witness could not see where the voices and arguing came from or indicate that they were Pistorius and Steenkamp's voices.
His perception of distance was "astounding" - he changed his evidence from saying 600m to 300m to "even less".
Nair points out that there may be other reasons why Steenkamp's bladder was empty, but says Botha was not the right witness to answer this.
Nair says if the defence had succeeded in showing the state's case to be weak that would be an exceptional circumstance (and lead to the granting of bail).
To recap, so far Nair has simply summarised the proceedings of the last few days, and described the legal definition of bail and his own duties.
He has to decide whether or not to free Pistorius on bail as he awaits his trial, but he wants to emphasise that he is not making a finding of guilt or innoncence in the murder charge.
Nair says that on the question of premeditated murder he is not at this point as much seized with the issue of finding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant has committed premeditated murder.
The state met the threshold for a charge of premeditated murder, he says. But Nair says he is not here to decide guilt – that's for the trial judge, he says.
Nair runs through the prosecution's argument that this was a "schedule six" offence – premeditated murder – and Pistorius should not get bail, including the number of shots, the wounds on the righthand side of the body, and witness statements about fighting having been heard.
The defence argued this could never have been premediatated murder, Nair recalls.
He says bail serves the public interest because it reduces the number of prisoners in an already overcrowded system and reduces the number of families deprived of a breadwinner.
Botha, Nair recalls, said he saw Steenkamp lying dead at the bottom of Pistorius's stairs in shorts and a vest.
Botha said Pistorius was a flight risk.
He said the accused spent time overseas and had a house in Italy. He said there was a safe in the kitchen and the accused's attorney arrived with a locksmith to open it and get a memory stick with account numbers for offshore accounts.
Botha said it was a very serious offence in that a defenceless woman was shot three times through a closed door and she was unarmed.
Botha said he had taken statements from neighbours and witnesses.
Botha said there were wounds in Steenkamp's head, elbow, and hip.
There was also a bullet hole through her shorts.
He said rounds of .38 ammunition were found and Pistorius had no licence for these. Pistorius would be charged for these, he said.
Botha said it was a two-storey dwelling. Up the stairs you turn right to the main bedroom. A woman's slippers were there.
In the bathroom were the shower and toilet with their own doors.
In the bathroom he saw a piece of wood from the broken toilet door lying on the floor of the bathroom, with one 1.9mm cartridge in the doorway.
The gun was on the shower mat.
There were two phones in the bathroom on the mat.
The toilet room measured 1.4m x 1.4m.
He found two BlackBerry phones in the cupboard, checked all four phones and no calls had been made.
Shots appeared to have been fired through the door and the key was on the outside of the door. A cricket bat was lying in the bathroom and was sent for tests to see if it was used on the door.
Ballistic experts informed Botha that shots were fired at an angle and the gunmen was 1.5m away.
One bullet hit the wall.
To get from the balcony to the bathroom you would have to pass the beds, Botha said.
There were two dogs outside on the ground area beneath the bedroom.
The angle of the shots indicated they were fired through the top in a downward direction.
He found a packet of testosterone with needles.
He said there were previous incidents written about in the media regarding Pistorius. Nair runs briefly through Botha's descriptions of these.
Nair runs through the statements by Pistorius's friends avowing he is a kind and humble person and detailing how much Pistorius and Steenkamp were in love.
He and Steenkamp went to bed at 10pm. His legs were removed. Aware of violent crime, he slept with his pistol under his bed.
He awoke in the early hours to bring a fan in from the balcony.
He heard a noise in the bathroom. He knew contractors had left ladders outside. He was overcome with terror and believed someone had entered his house. He was too scared to switch a light on.
He grabbed his pistol, screamed that the person should leave, and shouted to Steenkamp.
He went to the bathroom and heard someone in the toilet.
He was vulnerable on his stumps and wanted to protect himself and Steenkamp.
He fired shots at the closed door and again shouted to Steenkamp to call the police.
When he reached the bed he realised she was not in bed and it dawned on him she may have been the person in the toilet.
He screamed for help at the balcony.
He switched on the lights, got a cricket bat, smashed the door, found a key, and found Steenkamp slumped over but alive.
He asked someone to phone an ambulance and he called Netcare.
He opened the door downstairs and then went back up to get Steenkamp.
The deceased died in his arms.
He believes she must have gone to the toilet while he was at the balcony.
He is mortified at having killed her.
He believes the facts will show he did not mean to kill her.
He runs briefly through Pistorius's side of the story: that he did not mean to kill Reeva Steenkamp, taking her for a burglar, and the objective facts do not refute this. It was not premeditated murder, or even murder at all, according to Pistorius's statement.
Nair says there was the possibility that if Pistorius had been kept in prison and his consultations with Roux had been blocked in any way, it might have delayed the bail hearing.
Nair says it is usual practice for the applicant to be detained in prison rather than at a police station. But counsel for the accused said he needed to consult with him frequently. Nair was convinced by this argument of Roux's.
The tension is mounting at Pretoria magistrates court with a decision imminent on whether athlete Oscar Pistorius will be granted bail, writes David Smith from Pretoria.
The morning session saw a final duel between the prosecution and defence, including debate over whether a world-famous double-amputee with prosthetic legs poses a flight risk if released.
Prosecutor Gerrie Nel said Pistorius has the "money, means and motive" to flee if given bail, and described how WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is just as well known as Pistorius but skipped bail by seeking refuge in London's Ecuadorian embassy.
But defence advocate Barry Roux contended: "Mr Pistorius, every time he goes through security at airport, there's commotion ... He cannot go unnoticed through airport security."
As magistrate Desmond Nair pondered whether Pistorius could conceal his prostheses and "duck and dive" in a foreign country, Roux told the court: "Those legs need maintenance and adjustment on a monthly basis." Pistorius also requires medical attention for his stumps, he added.
The crowded courtroom now includes close friends of Reeva Steenkamp, the girlfriend shot by Pistorius, and the man now leading the investigation, Lieutenant Geneal Vineshkumar Moonoo.
Nair said he was in an "unenviable position" and would make his ruling at 2.30pm local time (12.30pm GMT).
Oscar Pistorius in court this morning. Photograph: AP Photograph: /AP
Roux mocks Nel's argument that Pistorius is a flight risk; every time he goes through airport security it causes a commotion, he says. It is impossible for this man to disappear. His legs need constant maintanence and he needs medical attention for his stumps, he says.
Roux says it makes sense that Pistorius went downstairs to open the front door before carrying Steenkamp's body down, because the security guard is on his way and he wants to let him in. There's nothing improbable about that, he says.
Nair asks how long it was between the shooting and Pistorius telling anyone he thought there was a burglar.
Roux points out that Nel earlier described Pistorius as "firing blindly" – blindly, not deliberately, he says.
Talking about Nel's points regarding the placing of the mobile phones and gun and why the house door was unlocked, Roux says it makes sense that he would go to the toilet, try the door, and drop the gun there. "That's where I would expect it to be." It only makes sense that he put the gun down while trying to open the toilet door, he says.
#OscarPistorius Defence describing the frantic effort he says OP made to save Reeva's life. OP is sobbing as he hears this
Roux says if he were prosecuting he would argue it was culpable homicide not murder. "He did not want to kill Reeva," Roux says. The charge here is not that he wanted to kill an unknown burglar, he says.
Roux, Pistorius's defence lawyer, says the most crucial part of his reply will be that the prosecution misinterprets the assinging of intent. He says you can't transfer intent from one person to another ie if you intend to kill a burglar but you kill someone else that doesn't mean you intended to kill that someone else.
The new investigating officer, Lieutenant General Vineshkumar Moonoo, who replaced Hilton Botha yesterday, is in court, according to Karyn Maughan of eNCA News.
New #OscarPistorius investigating officer in court. Photographers clamber to capture him, deep in discussion with prosecutors. @encanews
Nel returns to the restaurant incident, saying it's a terrible thing to handle a gun in a public place.
He says there is no evidence before the court that Steenkamp's bladder was empty when she died (as the defence have stated in order to indicate she was going to the toilet rather than hiding from Pistorius).
#Pistorius magistrate fidgeting in chair, looks eager to wrap this up. Prosecution reading Oscar's wikipedia on iPad
Nel says Pistorius is apparently a paranoid man who slept with windows and balcony doors open. He has to explain that. He's afraid of crime and yet his front door was unlocked – why?
Nel says Pistorius is worried about his sponsorships and his image. "Always me."
He says Pistorius has been protected too much – and now a person is dead.
He points out that the cabinet minister for women and children came to the first day of this hearing. That's how serious this case is to the government, Nel says.
He says Botha thought Pistorius was 1.5m from the toilet door when he shot, and says Botha gave evidence of the angle of the shot. He concedes Botha is not an expert.
Nel recalls the defence's claims that Pistorius had a shoulder problem and slept on Steenkamp's usual side of the bed instead of his own on the night in question. "It will be very difficult for the state to test that – but we'd like to test it."
Nel says what we know is she was barricaded in to the toilet, there were two phones in the bathroom and those phones were never used to make calls. He says he is not saying Pistorius didn't make calls after the shooting.
Nair asks if he has shown that the second phone was Steenkamp's. No, says Nel, but Pistorius hasn't denied it.
He claims that after the shooting it is implausible for Pistorius to say he then immediately thought it might have been Steenkamp he shot, rather than searching all through the rest of the house for her.
Why would the witnesses lie about hearing noise that night, asks Nel. Is it coincidence that the neighbour heard arguments, screams and shots? That's improbable, he says.
We agree that Pistorius cried at the scene, says Nel. That's expected; that's remorse. He was sorry he had shot her and his career was gone, he won't be able to travel any more. He felt sorry for himself, says Nel. It's a possibility.
Nel says the burglar story was something Pistorius had planned he would say.
Nel says Pistorius's burglar claim was all part of the planning. "As soon as they confront me, I'll say it was a burglar."
The bullet went through her shorts, making Pistorius's account that she was shot while going to the toilet "improbable", says Nel (because it indicates she was wearing them when shot).
Nel says Pistorius's decision to submit an affidavit rather than testify shows he doesn't take the proceedings seriously. He decided not be "tested" by court questioning.
Nel says the way he read the affidavit was that Pistorius was saying he did nothing wrong - not culpable homicide, nothing.
He does not say he killed Steenkamp unlawfully. That's why Nel says it increases his flight risk.
I've just been speaking to my colleague David Smith in Pretoria magistrates court. He said that it was possible the magistrate, Desmond Nair, could take the weekend to make his decision. He said that bail for murder in South Africa was not uncommon – partly due to the overcrowding in prisons there – and said he thought it was likely, on balance, that Pistorius would get bail.
Allow Audioboo content?
This article includes content provided by Audioboo. We ask for your permission before anything is loaded, as they may be using cookies and other technologies. To view this content, click 'Allow and continue'.
Good morning. Today Oscar Pistorius is expected to find out whether he will be freed on bail as he awaits trial for the murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp.
Yesterday Pistorius’s lawyer, Barry Roux, set out the Paralympic and Olympic star’s case that he thought Steenkamp was a burglar when he shot her through the toilet door in the early hours of 14 February, and said his client was not a flight risk and should be granted bail. He denied the killing was premeditated murder, or even murder at all.
But prosecutor Gerrie Nel stated that even going by Pistorius’s own account of the crime, the defendant still deliberately shot and killed a “burglar”. He could not have meant those four shots through the toilet door to have done anything other kill. The defence had not proved the exceptional circumstances necessary for the granting of bail, Nel said.
Today Nel will finish his summing up, and barring unforeseen events – of which, so far in this case, there have been many – magistrate Desmond Nair will announce his decision.
The hearing is due to begin at Pretoria magistrates court at 10am local time (8am GMT). We’ll have live coverage here from then.
