Above
all, there can be few among us who don't sympathise with the bereaved, especially as this has dragged on for several years.
I learned about diplomatic immunity during initial police training in 1967 and sometimes wondered how to deal with somebody who claimed it in a modern version of
civis romanus sum. That never happened. The following is from p1 of this thread
Psamathe wrote: ↑6 Oct 2019, 10:08am
It is something I've been wondering about; not diplomatic immunity as I agree that diplomats need to be able to represent their country, but extending that immunity to non-diplomats (e.g. wives) who don't need to say sometimes controversial unpalatable things as they aren't representing their country.
But I also wonder if even those diplomats (excl. entourage) should abide at least by the laws of their own country e.g. hit somebody with a car and run away would be illegal in the US as well as the UK so "diplomatic immunity" should not be a license to behave outside any laws.
Ian
As this has dragged on, I've followed it with interest and in doing so I've increased my understanding of the subject and the "facts" as established in the appeal processes.
My brief summary would be that the defendant made a momentary error of judgment with devastating consequences.(at the risk of appearing facetious I'll note she was abiding by the laws of her own country by driving on the right.) More to the point, the evidence is that she stopped and remained at the scene and co-operated with the police. In particular, she did not assert diplomatic immunity, which in turn suggests to me that her actions had not been influenced by a belief she was somehow above English law.
There followed a period of a couple of weeks when the relevant authorities discussed her diplomatic status and the relevant department of the foreign office accepted that she did enjoy diplomatic immunity. IMO, it's worth noting that our officials had not taken account of a landmark Supreme Court judgment which made it 100% clear that somebody in this defendant's position enjoyed the protection of diplomatic immunity on a personal basis and that it could only be revoked personally, ie not by implication.
The US government then took the normal (and only available) action of repatriating the defendant with the knowledge of the UK authorities.
Since then, there's been a publicity circus, even involving at one point Donald Trump. There's also been imo unwise comment from eg Andrea Leadsom.
Anyway, I'm saddened to read this after twenty-odd pages, which implies to me I might just as well have held my counsel
Psamathe wrote: ↑20 Oct 2022, 4:23pm
Based on individual's history maybe arrest her on arrival given she is clearly at risk of absconding.
Ian
At the very least, I can see absolutely no evidence for that comment and there's plenty in the thread saying exactly the opposite