Think you’ve heard the last of Oscar? Think again.

Oscar Pistorius is a murderer.

So said South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal in no uncertain terms, closing another chapter in a trial which has gripped the world from the moment news first broke of Reeva Steenkamp’s death.

Even the honourable judges at the Supreme Court of Appeal were not immune from this story’s extraordinary narrative appeal, with Justice Eric Leach – who read the judgment in Bloemfontein on Thursday morning – summing it up in unusually descriptive prose.

“This case involves a human tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. A young man overcomes huge physical disabilities to reach Olympian heights as an athlete. In doing so he becomes an international celebrity, he meets a young woman of great natural beauty and a successful model, romance blossoms, and then, ironically on Valentine's Day, all is destroyed when he takes her life.”

Leach’s implication was clear: like Icarus, Pistorius flew too close to the sun.

For Pistorius, the ruling comes just weeks after he was released from prison into the relative luxury of correctional supervision, which he has spent at his uncle Arnold’s plush home in Pretoria. He shouldn’t get too comfortable, however: the minimum sentence for murder is 15 years in prison, three times what he received following his original conviction on culpable homicide.

All things being equal, Pistorius will be back in jail within months.

But all things aren’t equal, especially for Pistorius, a world-famous double amputee, and there are more legal battles to come – first a sentencing hearing on the new murder conviction, and then a possible constitutional court hearing. Pistorius’ disability will be central to defence arguments, and may be what elevates the case from a criminal to a constitutional matter.

Whatever happens next, it’s clear that this story is far from over.

“First, the sentencing procedure has to get underway. There’s a minimum 15 years sentence for murder, but there is judicial discretion on this, if there are compelling circumstances. We will hear evidence about his disability and how he’s not an appropriate candidate for a long incarceration, especially because his psychiatric report revealed he had suicidal tendencies,” said Karyn Maughan, a journalist with local broadcaster eNCA who has been following the trial closely.

Maughan said that the defence may invoke his disability to take the matter to the Constitutional Court. “They could say that the appeal court fundamentally misinterpreted dolus eventualis, and that they didn’t give due account to his status as a double amputee or his general anxiety disorder. These are psychiatric issues which may mean he shouldn’t be evaluated by the same standards as others.”

Before the Pistorius case, few in South Africa had ever heard of dolus eventualis, or indirect intention, the obscure legal concept around which the Pistorius case revolves. In simple terms: did Pistorius contemplate the possibility that he might kill somebody when he pumped four bullets into the bathroom door? And, having contemplated that possibility, did he choose to proceed anyway, recklessly endangering someone’s life in the process?

The appeal court’s verdict on these questions was unanimous: yes and yes. “In these circumstances, I have no doubt that in firing the fatal shots the accused must have foreseen that whoever was behind the toilet door might die, but reconciled with that event occurring, and gambled with that person’s life,” said Leach, reversing the trial judge Thokozile Masipa’s decision on the matter.

The appeal court also found that Pistorius was not justified in claiming that he was acting in putative private defence (in other words, that he thought his own life was in danger), again overturning Masipa’s ruling.

“Actually, in my analysis of the judgment today, dolus eventualis ended up being the least impactful part of this case in terms of the ultimate verdict. The real punchline of this judgment was actually the reversal of Judge Masipa’s factual finding on putative private defence,” said Kelly Phelps, criminal law expert at the University of Cape Town. Phelps argues that appeal court’s determination on dolus eventualis was not sufficient in itself to overturn Pistorius’ conviction for culpable homicide; but when he could no longer rely on putative private defence, this became inevitable.

Phelps also believes this case is headed for the Constitutional Court. “I’d be very surprised if there wasn’t a massive effort going on now to establish constitutional grounds for an appeal. The key thing with the Constitution is that the scope of appeals is very broad. If one looks hard enough, you can almost always find a constitutional ground for an appeal. In a case like this, which is already in exceptional terrain because the state has taken the unusual step of appealing a conviction, there are big legal questions around double jeopardy and the legal ambit of the Supreme Court of Appeal,” she said.

Another potential ground for a constitutional appeal is the unprecedented media coverage that the case had received. In the original trial, Pistorius’ defence put it on record that a number of witnesses refused to testify as they were afraid of being in the spotlight. This, it could be argued, has compromised his right to a fair trial.

While for Pistorius the continued legal battles are his only chance of avoiding more prison time, for Reeva Steenkamp’s family the saga merely prolongs their heartache. They have been forced to grieve in public, in the full glare of the world’s attention. For June Steenkamp, Reeva’s mother, it all became too much on Tuesday: she after the ruling was announced, she sobbed outside the court.

For Reeva’s father, Barry Steenkamp, the decision represented some kind of closure. “I would hope to God that all of this could have been prevented, but seeing that it has been done, let us now all get on with our lives,” he said.

The appeal court’s deconstruction of her rulings makes for grim reading for Judge Masipa, who has been on the receiving end of intense and often personal criticism ever since she issued her judgment last year. Given the media interest, it is fair to say that her mistakes have received more attention than any others made by a South African judge. But the appeal court, in an unusual but sensitive coda to its judgment, emphasised that this should not tarnish her reputation.

“The trial judge conducted the hearing with a degree of dignity and patience that is a credit to the judiciary. The fact that this court has determined that certain mistakes were made should not be seen as an adverse comment upon her competence and ability. The fact is that different judges reach different conclusions and, in the light of an appeal structure, those of the appellate court prevail. But the fact that the appeal has succeeded is not to be regarded as a slight upon the trial judge who is to be congratulated for the manner in which she conducted the proceedings,” said Leach. DM

Photo: Olympic and Paralympic track star Oscar Pistorius leans back after applying eye drops as he prepares himself for another day in the dock during court proceedings at the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria March 14, 2014. REUTERS/Kim Ludbrook/Pool