Pistorius’s lawyer apologises for remarks about Steenkamps

The lawyer for disgraced Paralympian Oscar Pistorius has publicly apologised to Reeva Steenkamp’s parents after potentially defamatory comments ascribed to him were published on a UK website.

In the article published online in The Times, defence attorney Julian Knight allegedly claimed that June and Barry Steenkamp had unfairly stalled the victim-offender dialogue (VOD) process and deliberately frustrated the parole process.

In a letter addressed to the Steenkamps’ attorney, Tania Koen, Knight has since apologised profusely and withdrawn the statement.

In the article published on April 29, Knight is quoted saying it was the Steenkamps who had prolonged the VOD, which is one of the requirements set out by the department of correctional services for an inmate to be considered for parole.

“My client has been taken away from his support structures to accommodate the Steenkamps but has been met by one delay after another.

“The question can be asked whether this is being done to punish my client, to deliberately frustrate the parole process,” Knight was quoted as saying at the time.

In November, Pistorius, 35, was brought to Gqeberha, where the Steenkamps live, for the VOD process to be facilitated.

In a letter sent to Knight dated May 9, Koen said the Steenkamps were “shocked, surprised, and feel very insulted by the defamatory statements”.

Koen said in the letter that Knight had three days to publicly apologise and withdraw the statements, or further steps would be taken.

In his reply, received by Koen on Wednesday, Knight said while he unconditionally apologised to the Steenkamps, the comments made were in response to the questions posed to him by the journalist.

“Kindly note that in responding to the questions asked, there was no intention by the writer to defame or hurt your clients,” Knight said.

Knight said that if the Steenkamps wished not to take part in the VOD, “[Pistorius] does not wish to foist the process upon them”.

Speaking to The Herald yesterday, Koen said the Steenkamps, and in particular Barry, still wished to take part in the VOD.

“They are still willing to participate and to prepare for it, they definitely want to speak to [Pistorius],” Koen said.

Facilitated by the department, the VOD process was a sensitive one which could take time to properly prepare all the parties involved, she said.

According to Koen, there was still no definite date for when the actual meeting would take place.

Reeva, 29, was killed when Pistorius fired four shots through a locked bathroom door at his home in Pretoria during the early hours of Valentine’s Day in 2013.

During the trial, Pistorius testified that he had mistaken her for an intruder, while the state claimed the fatal shooting was a result of a heated argument between the two.

Pistorius’s eligibility for parole came after the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) corrected its ruling on his 13½-year sentence after it emerged that its judgment failed to take into consideration the 506 days he had already served after first being sentenced to five years on October 21 2014 by judge Thokozile Masipa.

In 2015, on appeal, the SCA overturned his culpable homicide verdict and convicted him of murder.