+1mumbojumbo wrote: ↑8 Dec 2022, 7:36pm Is this woman likely to want to drive in Britain A questionable use of resources given the backlog of criminal cases.it is likely banning a vegan from the butchers.
Diplomatic Immunity?
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
-
- Posts: 3687
- Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
Even though justice has been very poorly served the alternative (ie. doing nothing) was significantly worse. As far as I’m concerned a lot of people in both this country and the USA should be hanging their heads in shame and showing remorse over the needless and unlawful killing of Harry Dunn.mumbojumbo wrote: ↑8 Dec 2022, 7:36pm Is this woman likely to want to drive in Britain A questionable use of resources given the backlog of criminal cases.it is likely banning a vegan from the butchers.
Don’t fret, it’s OK to: ride a simple old bike; ride slowly, walk, rest and admire the view; ride off-road; ride in your raincoat; ride by yourself; ride in the dark; and ride one hundred yards or one hundred miles. Your bike and your choices to suit you.
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
I can understand the need for Diplomatic Immunity but do wonder if it needs to be "qualified". Seems it can be used by the holders to put them above the law and commit offences without repercussion. Can't see changes happening gioven how US has used "diplomatic immunity" just to help one of their citizens avoid the consequences of her breaking the law.
Ian
Ian
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
Whatever you understand, I'm mystified by your comments. You seem to be saying that diplomatic immunity should not apply if a beneficiary is alleged to have broken the law.Psamathe wrote: ↑9 Dec 2022, 11:00am I can understand the need for Diplomatic Immunity but do wonder if it needs to be "qualified". Seems it can be used by the holders to put them above the law and commit offences without repercussion. Can't see changes happening gioven how US has used "diplomatic immunity" just to help one of their citizens avoid the consequences of her breaking the law.
Ian
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
My understanding (maybe wrong) is that diplomatic immunity is intended to stop hostile Governments in effect taking diplomatic staff "hostage" with trumped-up charges. But Governments seem on occasions to take this as their staff being exempt from local laws. So I would think some way to ensure diplomatic staff were still subject to local laws yet provision for exemption where charges are without merit (I'll leave it to the legal experts to resolve working and independent arbitration).thirdcrank wrote: ↑10 Dec 2022, 11:49amWhatever you understand, I'm mystified by your comments. You seem to be saying that diplomatic immunity should not apply if a beneficiary is alleged to have broken the law.Psamathe wrote: ↑9 Dec 2022, 11:00am I can understand the need for Diplomatic Immunity but do wonder if it needs to be "qualified". Seems it can be used by the holders to put them above the law and commit offences without repercussion. Can't see changes happening gioven how US has used "diplomatic immunity" just to help one of their citizens avoid the consequences of her breaking the law.
Ian
So in the Harry Dunn case it would seem clear that pursuing the investigation and court case was not a UK Government being hostile to the US Government and trying to hold one of their diplomats "hostage". So local laws and process should apply.
Ian
-
- Posts: 11024
- Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
- Location: Near Bicester Oxon
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
This has been a long thread and (to use one of my clichés) to be thread to needle, the history of diplomatic immunity has been explained with links.
As the "receiving country" under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the UK has total control before they arrive over those it will accept and the extent of their immunity
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instrume ... 1_1961.pdf
Having been accepted and once in the UK, they benefit personally from diplomatic immunity, subject only to any prior conditions agreed between the sending and receiving governments Any subsequent waiver requires the agreement of the "sending country" in this case the USA
This cock up seems to have begun under the aegis of Sir Nicholas Cosmo Bonsor (Bt) PC who was in charge of the relevant bit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office almost thirty years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Bonsor
The diplomatic arrangements at the base were not kept up-to-date by the FCO, in particular it seems nobody bothered to consider the effect of the landmark Supreme Court judgment by Lord Sumption in Al-Malki v Reyes [2017]. that the terms of the VCDR were to be interpreted robustly. That's my layman's summary of the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, in the aftermath of the departure of Mrs Sacoolas
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... ffairs.pdf
Even more briefly, to dress this up as an example of US hegemony is not based on fact.
As the "receiving country" under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the UK has total control before they arrive over those it will accept and the extent of their immunity
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instrume ... 1_1961.pdf
Having been accepted and once in the UK, they benefit personally from diplomatic immunity, subject only to any prior conditions agreed between the sending and receiving governments Any subsequent waiver requires the agreement of the "sending country" in this case the USA
This cock up seems to have begun under the aegis of Sir Nicholas Cosmo Bonsor (Bt) PC who was in charge of the relevant bit of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office almost thirty years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Bonsor
The diplomatic arrangements at the base were not kept up-to-date by the FCO, in particular it seems nobody bothered to consider the effect of the landmark Supreme Court judgment by Lord Sumption in Al-Malki v Reyes [2017]. that the terms of the VCDR were to be interpreted robustly. That's my layman's summary of the judgment of the Queen's Bench Division, in the aftermath of the departure of Mrs Sacoolas
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... ffairs.pdf
Even more briefly, to dress this up as an example of US hegemony is not based on fact.
-
- Posts: 36778
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Re: Diplomatic Immunity?
I see it's almost exactly a year since I posted that one of the precursors to this controversy was the transfer of this US base from the control of the US armed forces - when visiting forces laws would have applied - to civilian staffing.
I see that there's a case going through the courts where a member of the US forces has been involved in a fatal crash and their assertion that the visiting forces system should apply has been denied by an English magistrates' court. It's reported that the defendant appeared at Norwich Crown Court yesterday and pleaded "Not Guilty."
Reporting restrictions apply so information is limited to guff like
https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/us-serv ... l-9290566/
I see that there's a case going through the courts where a member of the US forces has been involved in a fatal crash and their assertion that the visiting forces system should apply has been denied by an English magistrates' court. It's reported that the defendant appeared at Norwich Crown Court yesterday and pleaded "Not Guilty."
Reporting restrictions apply so information is limited to guff like
The defendant is now on bail for almost a year awaiting trial.shoulder-length brown hair and wore a black trouser suit
https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/us-serv ... l-9290566/