Oscar Pistorius prepares to learn his fate as verdict looms

By Rohit Kachroo: ITV News Correspondent

It is one year and seven months since Reeva Steenkamp was shot dead - six months since her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius, went on trial accused of murdering her. The crucial question at the heart of this case, whether he knew that it was his girlfriend behind his bathroom door or whether he truly believed he was firing at an intruder, is about to be answered.

Of course, there is only one man who really knows what happened on Valentine's Day morning last year, but there is only one woman whose opinion counts. Thokozile Masipa, the crime reporter turned judge who has guided this trial at a steady pace, will read her judgment, likely to be hundreds of pages long.

Because of apartheid era laws, passed to counter the racial biases of South African society, criminal verdicts here are decided by judges, not juries. So, although she may be influenced by the views of her two assistants, her so-called ‘assessors’, this will be her decision alone.

Masipa must decide whether the killing was 'pre-meditated' - a pre-planned murder. If found guilty of this charge, the most serious option available to the judge, Pistorius faces a mandatory life sentence - at least 25 years in jail - though the sentence could be reduced through mitigation.

Prosecutors say the evidence shows that he intentionally shot Reeva Steenkamp after an argument in the early hours, and should be convicted of this charge. They say the judge should reject Pistorius' account, claiming that he has shown himself to be a "deceitful and appalling witness".

Alternatively, the judge could find Pistorius guilty of the lesser charge of murder. She would need to be convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that he did mean to kill whoever was behind his bathroom door – his girlfriend or an intruder - but with no element of planning and without “malice aforethought”.

A jail sentence of up to 15 years is attached to this charge, though a much lighter sentence might be handed down if, for example, the judge decides that Pistorius has shown sufficient remorse since the shooting.

Defence lawyer, Barry Roux, argues that his client should have been charged with culpable homicide rather than murder - similar to the British charge of manslaughter. The judge would have to believe that the defendant did not intend to kill Ms Steenkamp, and thought he was tackling an intruder. She would have to calculate his level of negligence before sentencing him.

Pistorius could face 15 years in jail, but might receive a non-custodial sentence if the judge decides that his actions were reasonable. His lawyers have argued that they were, given the impact of his celebrity, his anxiety and South Africa's high crime rate. They believe that this helps to explain the actions of a man motivated by fear, and not rage.

And if that level of fear forces Masipa to decide that Pistorius’ actions were indeed reasonable - that he truly was acting in self-defence, as he claims - she might decide to acquit him. But prosecutors would be likely to appeal against that decision.

Then, there are the other charges that Pistorius faces – lesser charges, but serious enough to potentially carry jail terms. He stands accused of discharging firearms in public – once under the table of a crowded restaurant in Johannesburg, once through the sunroof of a car. Both charges carry a prison sentence of up to five years.

He is also accused of illegal possession of ammunition, which carries a custodial term of up to 15 years. But, as with all of the charges, the judge is afforded considerable leeway when deciding whether he should go to prison and, if so, for how long.

But even after the verdict is delivered, there might be some way to go. An appeal, by either the defence or prosecution, seems likely. Some of the arguments that might feature have already been aired during his trial.

For example, Pistorius’ lawyers claimed that some witnesses had refused to give evidence because of the decision to televise the trial - potentially affecting its outcome.

Already, both sides will be preparing their cases for the appeal courts, should the judge’s decision not go their way. Even after a verdict, the conclusion of this legal process might be some time away.