Harry Dunn

[Carlton green]

The penalty handed down was, I think, the best of a bad job; as far as I’m concerned politics has badly overridden justice.

The UK’s next step should be renegotiation of extradition terms with the USA, what’s in place now isn’t even handed and doesn’t serve justice adequately.

Mistakes happen. In this case it’s arguable that structural measures should have been put in place by the base commanding officers to ensure that there was no confusion for drivers. I think that various people have failed in their duty of care and have been doing so for some considerable time.

It's to do with diplomatic immunity not extradition treaties.

Well both are relevant. Diplomatic immunity might be waived (by the USA) - certainly we should have said that in this case it wasn’t appropriate - but extradition of a US citizen from the USA to the UK ain’t going to happen because the extradition treaty that we have with then doesn’t allow for it.

As the case went to court was not diplomatic immunity waIved?

[Nearholmer]

It’s murky.

From Reuters:

“Sacoolas' lawyer Ben Cooper said she had not personally asked for diplomatic immunity and that her departure from Britain afterwards was "a decision taken by her government".”

I think that the Trump administration claimed diplomatic immunity, and that she eventually decided of her own accord to face the court, or was compelled to, but without the support of her current government. It’s really hard to follow the twists and turns, but I think at some point the US administration simply stopped pushing the diplomatic immunity line, either because UK courts had shown that it was untenable, or because they’d decided for themselves that it was.

[Bonefishblues]

I have had some peripheral contact with matters covert but I would give credence to an account which indicates that Mrs Sacoolas was a passive participant in matters that followed the death of Mr Dunn.

But we will never know, and things are now resolved.

[DaveReading]

I have had some peripheral contact with matters covert but I would give credence to an account which indicates that Mrs Sacoolas was a passive participant in matters that followed the death of Mr Dunn.

I would tend to agree with that.

I'm not convinced, though, by the assertions doing the rounds that she herself was/is a spook.

[Nearholmer]

From what I can work out, her lawyer stated at one of the trials relating to all this in the US that she worked for the CIA.

[pwa]

There must be technical solutions open to us these days. Even if it were just big white direction arrrows on the road surface at places where foreign drivers begin their journey on UK roads.

A bit like this, perhaps?


RAF Croughton.jpg

Too easily missed by a driver focussed on looking left and right to see if it is safe to pull out. I'm talking about very big and bold road markings, or really "in your face" signage, But these days it must be possible to have in-car warning systems. We need to imagine a driver not properly concentrating on the matter in hand, possibly allowing themselves to be distracted by the kids in the back seats, and have measures in place to counter the sub-optimal driver. If we have ways of doing that, we should implement them. This is not to say that the driver should not be driving properly, but we will never be able to rely on all drivers thinking clearly all the time. That is never going to happen. Anything that overcomes driver dopiness must be a good thing.

I know some people will say that stronger punishment in this case would have made drivers focus better in the future, but I just don't think human brains work that way. There would still be inattentive moments where the mind drifts, if only for a second or two. And the consequences of driving on the wrong side of the road can be so devastating, as in this instance, that we would be negligent not to look at anything practical that could reduce the chances of this happening.

[pete75]

The penalty handed down was, I think, the best of a bad job; as far as I’m concerned politics has badly overridden justice.

The UK’s next step should be renegotiation of extradition terms with the USA, what’s in place now isn’t even handed and doesn’t serve justice adequately.

Mistakes happen. In this case it’s arguable that structural measures should have been put in place by the base commanding officers to ensure that there was no confusion for drivers. I think that various people have failed in their duty of care and have been doing so for some considerable time.

It's to do with diplomatic immunity not extradition treaties.

Well both are relevant. Diplomatic immunity might be waived (by the USA) - certainly we should have said that in this case it wasn’t appropriate - but extradition of a US citizen from the USA to the UK ain’t going to happen because the extradition treaty that we have with then doesn’t allow for it.

As the case went to court was not diplomatic immunity waived?

I think she made the decision herself. The US certainly didn't waive diplomatic immunity. Trump and Biden were both very clear on that.

Of course the extradition treaty with the US is one sided. When the powerful negotiate with the powerless it's what happens. Particularly so when the powerless really, really want to friends with the powerful. The USA has a special relationship with us. They say jump and we say how high. The last leader we had who stood up to the USA was Harold Wilson.

[Nearholmer]

Both Diplomatic Immunity, initially claimed and then so far as I can see quietly dropped, and extradition, very firmly refused, but not on grounds of diplomatic immunity, were involved.

[pete75]

From what I can work out, her lawyer stated at one of the trials relating to all this in the US that she worked for the CIA.

A CIA operative who speaks fluent Russian. They wanted her working at Langley not rotting in Holloway prison.

[Nearholmer]

….. and exposed to every security risk imaginable while there.

[thirdcrank]

Both Diplomatic Immunity, initially claimed and then so far as I can see quietly dropped, and extradition, very firmly refused, but not on grounds of diplomatic immunity, were involved.

There is another very long thread about diplomatic immunity. Perhaps the relevant point here is that diplomatic immunity only applies in the "receiving country" in this case the UK. Once the person is elsewhere, they will no longer be protected by diplomatic immunity. I suggest another relevant point is that in a case like this, the government of the receiving country (the UK in this case) may request the sending country to waive diplomatic immunity. This was requested in this case and the US government refused a waiver and anticipating the only course open to the UK government - ie to declare her persona non grata ie to expel her - they returned her to the US.

Were some crime to be discovered after a person benefiting from DI to be discovered after they had left, then a request for extradition might be appropriate as the only way forward This is para 71 in the link I have posted several times

On 22 December 2019 the CPS announced that it had authorised NP to charge Mrs
Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving, and it began extradition
proceedings. The US State Department condemned the request as an “egregious
abuse… that would establish a troubling precedent”.

[Nearholmer]

Are you saying that the US continued to assert that DI originally applied, even after Britain seems to have firmly said otherwise? Or, are you saying that they simply stopped talking about it either way once she was home?

[thirdcrank]

Are you saying that the US continued to assert that DI originally applied, even after Britain seems to have firmly said otherwise?

I'm saying that your post there is factually incorrect. Unfortunately, this duplicate thread has left a lot of my posts behind on the other - Diplomatic Immunity thread.

In the aftermath of Ms Sacoolas being returned to the US, there was a crowd-funded court case on behalf of the bereaved family. Because of the problems caused by covid etc., this was heard in what was described in the official report of the proceedings as a "rolled up" hearing. AIUI, that means several different things which might have been the subject of endless judgments were heard at one go. A relevant bit of the judgment is in para 4

Upon the conclusion of that dialogue, on 15 September 2019, Mrs Sacoolas left
England, the FCO having accepted that Mrs Sacoolas was entitled to immunity from
criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom (My bold)

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... ffairs.pdf

For the convenience of anybody who missed it, here's the diplomatic immunity thread. (I'll declare my only interest, which is that I devoted some effort to trying to (a) understand the issues and then (b) explaining them. It's disappointing to have wasted part of my dwindling life expectancy on (b))

viewtopic.php?p=1403426#p1403426

[Nearholmer]

My understanding from a similar endeavour was that the final British position was the opposite, with the former FCO Minister stating in June 2020 that the agreement giving immunity to staff at the base did not extend to their families, but I confess that the tale is hard to follow.

Para 95 in the Report does indeed say that the final (I think, unless there was a subsequent judicial review) judgement was that she had immunity at the time of the accident.

(Para 4 seems just to be a recount of history, saying what the FCO thought in 2019, not giving a judgement as to the definitive position.)

[thirdcrank]

Understanding of parts of the judgment may be clouded by the fact that the (crowd-funded) actions on behalf of the bereaved family were not against Ms Sacoolis personally but against different official bodies for their part in what I've described as a cock-up. Originally, the FCO did believe diplomatic immunity did not apply and said so in exchanges with the US Embassy, but, by the time she left they had accepted the US interpretation of the situation.. However, bearing that caveat in mind, the judgment seems to be a detailed account of the events, up to the date of the hearing.

The final two paragraphs pf the judgment give the court's decisions in what seen like clear rulings

146. Permission to apply for judicial review in relation to Grounds 2 and 3 is refused on the
basis that they are not arguable.
147. We grant permission to apply for judicial review in relation to Ground 1, but dismiss
the claim.