Yes, as indeed they should. This was, on the face of it, an even more dreadful (and inexplicable) error in law by Masipa, and one which should in itself raise huge questions as to her competency to serve as a criminal judge.
Essentially, Masipa ruled that there was no (required) animus on the part of Pistorius, when in fact the required animus was entirely proven by the fact that Pistorius - by his own admission! - knew exactly what it was that he was storing in his safe ("for his father" - well, yeah, right, but that's not strictly important here......). The only scenario here in which absence of animus could be shown would be if (for example) Pistorius could successfully claim that his father had given him a sealed package that he (his father) told him contained (say) jewellery (but which actually contained the ammunition in question), and asked him to store it in his safe for a while.
It's astonishing and extremely worrying that Masipa ruled an absence of animus on this charge, which in turn led directly to the acquittal. I think this should be a slam-dunk reversal and conviction on the charge. It's also my firm view that the prosecution is totally correct in its grounds for appeal on the murder charge, and that Masipa erred very badly in law here also. But I'd concede that the murder verdict appeal is a slightly less black-and-white issue - though I would expect a retrial on the murder charge.
