Diplomatic Immunity?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

Carlton green wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 4:36pm
thirdcrank wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 4:22pm To save me speculating, which "appropriate calls" have you in mind? Why should this defendant now be pilloried for those appropriate calls not being made
I’m not pillorying the defendant, my view is that she should have faced the Courts. The appropriate call would have been for her never to have been allowed to leave the country and for the defence - in some quarters - of diplomatic immunity to have been discounted. The USA shouldn't have flown her home and once home they should have sent her back … but sometimes politics gets in the way of justice.

If she returns to the UK for judgement then a light sentence taking account of remorse might be appropriate, but otherwise throw the book at her and ask the USA to house her in one of their jails.
OK. You have obviously not read the detailed findings of the appeal courts as linked higher up the thread by jdsk. This problem was anticipated some time ago - John Major administration (?) - but those responsible didn't keep on top of it. I can't give the precise details without looking back in a way nobody else seems to be willing to do, but one issue was when these duties were transferred from the armed forces of the US (regulated by visiting forces treaties) to "civilian" personnel. Normally, diplomatic arrangements include ensuring those with diplomatic immunity are accommodated close to their embassy and so under the supervision of the ambassador. A relatively large operation like this remote from London (Northamptonshire?) caused concerns of eg drunk driving out in the sticks and so an agreement was made that US personnel at this RAF base containing a USAF base would not have diplomatic immunity. So far so good, but subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled in an entirely separate case, that once a family or household member was given DI through that status, they retained it on a personal basis and it could not be withdrawn by implication eg because it had been withdrawn from the head of the family. Bearing in mind that there's a specialist department at the foreign office dealing with this, it's not unreasonable to expect it to keep abreast of Supreme Court judgments.

Having gone to some trouble to deal with these issues over the last few years, I'm a bit saddened to read some of the posts by people who have not kept up.

Talk of throwing the book at her is just the type of talk the US government seemed to have in mind when they refused to extradite this person. Let's not forget that no matter how devastating was the result of this defendant's driving, it was caused by a momentary error, rather than the usual reasons for being on the wrong side of the road
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Stevek76 »

That strikes me as rather lenient, even by the lenient standards this country has regarding culpability for road deaths. Whether it is intentional or not, driving on the wrong side of the road is obviously dangerous and far below the standard of a careful and competent driver and a death resulted because of that.

Reasonably sure that 'normal' outcome of such things here, in cases where remorse is shown, no hit and run etc, is a plea for death by careless and a non-custodial sentence. Find it very unlikely it wouldn't have been prosecuted if it had been any other driver in otherwise identical circumstances.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10978
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Bonefishblues »

Psamathe wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 12:27pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 12:20pm Can you find someone with imunity guilty of an offence? If not then she's not quite absconded if she fled the UK on Official us advice but it was very close relative of absconding imho.
I thought the court had found her guilty and has moved on to a sentencing consideration (as per Guardian article Jonathan linked to). Hence I assume she does not have diplomatic immunity because as you say I'd assume if she had diplomatic immunity there could be no court case. But I'm no legal expert.

Ian
She has entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge and the more serious charge has been dropped.
Jdsk
Posts: 24486
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Jdsk »

Bonefishblues wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 5:33pm
Psamathe wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 12:27pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 12:20pm Can you find someone with imunity guilty of an offence? If not then she's not quite absconded if she fled the UK on Official us advice but it was very close relative of absconding imho.
I thought the court had found her guilty and has moved on to a sentencing consideration (as per Guardian article Jonathan linked to). Hence I assume she does not have diplomatic immunity because as you say I'd assume if she had diplomatic immunity there could be no court case. But I'm no legal expert.
She has entered a plea of guilty to the lesser charge and the more serious charge has been dropped.
Yes.

Now awaiting sentencing for causing death by careless driving. And the judge has requested that she attend in person for sentencing.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

Stevek76 wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 5:23pm That strikes me as rather lenient, even by the lenient standards this country has regarding culpability for road deaths. Whether it is intentional or not, driving on the wrong side of the road is obviously dangerous and far below the standard of a careful and competent driver and a death resulted because of that.

Reasonably sure that 'normal' outcome of such things here, in cases where remorse is shown, no hit and run etc, is a plea for death by careless and a non-custodial sentence. Find it very unlikely it wouldn't have been prosecuted if it had been any other driver in otherwise identical circumstances.
I cannot think of "otherwise identical circumstances" and IIRC, when this came up higher in the thread neither could anybody else but others (including me) had been on the wrong side of the road abroad without these devastating results. Just to be clear what I'm saying, if the specialists at the foreign office had done their jobs properly, including keeping up-to-date with relevant court decisions, this defendant would not have had diplomatic immunity so it would not have been an issue. She would have been subject to the same system as everybody else.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7860
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Mike Sales »

thirdcrank wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 5:35pm [ when this came up higher in the thread neither could anybody else but others (including me) had been on the wrong side of the road abroad without these devastating results.
Within half a mile of riding off the ferry from Boulogne I turned right into a side road and found myself on the wrong (i.e.right) side of the road.
If a motor had been there I would have paid the penalty on the spot. I had managed faultlessly in France.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Stevek76
Posts: 2084
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Stevek76 »

Agreed on that, clearly a mess up in the FO.

By otherwise identical I meant just without the DI confusion.

Careless for wrong side due to tiredness:
https://www.policeombudsman.org/Investi ... ter-head-o

very recent one from scotland, cleared of death by dangerous, but convicted of lesser careless, about as similar as it gets given he was on the wrong side by apparent mistake rather than dodgy overtake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... e-63096065
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Carlton green
Posts: 3630
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Carlton green »

thirdcrank wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 5:20pm
Carlton green wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 4:36pm
thirdcrank wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 4:22pm To save me speculating, which "appropriate calls" have you in mind? Why should this defendant now be pilloried for those appropriate calls not being made
I’m not pillorying the defendant, my view is that she should have faced the Courts. The appropriate call would have been for her never to have been allowed to leave the country and for the defence - in some quarters - of diplomatic immunity to have been discounted. The USA shouldn't have flown her home and once home they should have sent her back … but sometimes politics gets in the way of justice.

If she returns to the UK for judgement then a light sentence taking account of remorse might be appropriate, but otherwise throw the book at her and ask the USA to house her in one of their jails.
OK. You have obviously not read the detailed findings of the appeal courts as linked higher up the thread by jdsk. This problem was anticipated some time ago - John Major administration (?) - but those responsible didn't keep on top of it. I can't give the precise details without looking back in a way nobody else seems to be willing to do, but one issue was when these duties were transferred from the armed forces of the US (regulated by visiting forces treaties) to "civilian" personnel. Normally, diplomatic arrangements include ensuring those with diplomatic immunity are accommodated close to their embassy and so under the supervision of the ambassador. A relatively large operation like this remote from London (Northamptonshire?) caused concerns of eg drunk driving out in the sticks and so an agreement was made that US personnel at this RAF base containing a USAF base would not have diplomatic immunity. So far so good, but subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled in an entirely separate case, that once a family or household member was given DI through that status, they retained it on a personal basis and it could not be withdrawn by implication eg because it had been withdrawn from the head of the family. Bearing in mind that there's a specialist department at the foreign office dealing with this, it's not unreasonable to expect it to keep abreast of Supreme Court judgments.

Having gone to some trouble to deal with these issues over the last few years, I'm a bit saddened to read some of the posts by people who have not kept up.

Talk of throwing the book at her is just the type of talk the US government seemed to have in mind when they refused to extradite this person. Let's not forget that no matter how devastating was the result of this defendant's driving, it was caused by a momentary error, rather than the usual reasons for being on the wrong side of the road
I haven’t been involved with the thread for quite a long time but, it appears to me, that the finer details you talk about are down to incompetence by Government and Civil Servants.

To an extent Justice needs to be blind as in impartial and at the same time balanced, isn’t there a famous statue showing similar? Let the Courts decide the culpability and appropriate sentence, it’s as simple as that. ‘Throw the book at her’; well someone unlawfully lost their life, the Courts will come to their own judgement, and a fully remorseful person would acknowledge the seriousness of what had happened and part of that acknowledgment would be both waving any DI and returning to the UK for judgement and sentencing.

I’m not sure but wasn’t there some talk of vehicles within the base driving on the right and had there not been near misses in the past? If so then perhaps a broader action is also required, when in the UK you drive on the left and outside of ports there should be no changing of that.
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.
slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4612
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by slowster »

thirdcrank wrote: 21 Oct 2022, 5:35pm Just to be clear what I'm saying, if the specialists at the foreign office had done their jobs properly, including keeping up-to-date with relevant court decisions, this defendant would not have had diplomatic immunity so it would not have been an issue. She would have been subject to the same system as everybody else.
Sacoolas' fleeing resulted in a worse outcome for all parties, including for Sacoolas herself, as well as the Dunn family, the US Govt./State Department/CIA and the UK Govt./FO.

To a large degree I think the failure was at a much more senior level in the FO than any legal specialists. The communications between the Foreign Office and US Embassy are described in the link below (para. 46 onwards). It appears the people in the FO were overly focused on the legal question of whether there was immunity, and seeking a waiver from the US if there was. It needed someone senior at the FO to take a step back and consider the big picture, recognise the potential for the situation to turn into a diplomatic and media disaster, get advice from Govt. lawyers on the likely sentence, and then speak to the US Embassy and explain that it would be in Sacoolas' and everyone else's interests for her to take her lumps and get it over with quickly, which would result in the minimum of media interest and publicity.

- The suspended sentence/community service punishment that Sacoolas would probably have received (and probably will still receive) would likely be a far less damaging experience for her than the attention and pressure that she had to endure for the last three years from the media, the US State Dept. and her employer (the CIA).

- The Dunn family would similarly not have had to campaign for the last three years for justice, which has been traumatic for them and greatly increased the pain of losing Harry Dunn.

- The US Embassy/State Dept. and the FO would not have left hemselves looking like villains and had to waste a lot of time and effort of diplomats and the Foreign Office Minister and Secretary of State on achieving a resolution.

I can understand Anne Sacoolas herself not being in good position in the aftermath of the accident to realise what was in her own best interest. Facing the prospect of criminal prosecution with the possibility of a jail sentence is unnerving, doubly so in a foreign country with an unfamiliar justice system. I suspect that rather than just being told by her seniors/the US Embassy that the position under UK law was that she was entitled to leave the UK, she may have been tacitly advised to do so (as a serving CIA officer, she probably could not simply suddenly leave her position at the base without the agreement of her manager).

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/upl ... ffairs.pdf
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

This drags on, to the benefit of nobody personally involved. It should surprise nobody that the defendant will not appear in person at the deferred hearing. Plenty of mileage for tabloids, social media etc.

Harry Dunn: US driver will not attend sentencing in person

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-63871733

I've no idea how much interest this attracts in the US. Harry Dunn is also the name of a member of the US Capitol Police who was prominent when the Capitol was attacked by Trump supporters.
=========================================================
PS For anybody who likes to be properly informed about the events surrounding Anne Sacoolas being removed from the UK by the US authorities the detailed appeal judgment in the case. (IRC we are indebted to Jdsk for this link)

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

IMO the first ten paragraphs are a succinct explanation.

There follows a detailed explanation of The Vienna Convention and relevant UK court decisions, including the definitive judgment of Lord Sumption in the Supreme Court in Al-Malki -v- Reyes in 2019. And then an explanation of the background to this mess.

"The Facts" in the case concerning Ms Sacoolas are explained imo clearly in Part IV in paras 40 to 80. In particular, there is nothing to suggest that Ms Sacoolas didn't co-operate with the police.

Para 54 explains how the US Embassy asserted that Ms Sacoulas and her family enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Para 66 explains how the US Embassy officials explained that Ms Sacoulas' diplomatic immunity would not be waived.

Para 70 explains how the US Embassy explained to the Foreign Office that MsSacoulas had been returned to the US.
wheelyhappy99
Posts: 232
Joined: 5 Jul 2020, 11:12am

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by wheelyhappy99 »

I used to go past RAF Croughton quite often, on a motorbike. Stone walls and banks alongside the road, bends and slightly hilly. Nowhere to go if the carriageway is blocked e.g. another vehicle on the wrong side of the road.

If you scroll down a bit there's some interesting open source information about the Sacoolas family here:

https://www.secret-bases.co.uk/secret2.htm

Perhaps the UK and US governments have prioritised keeping a senior member of the security services at liberty rather than the interests of justice for a young person killed on his way to work?
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

This caught my eye yesterday

Murderer publicly executed by his victim's father, Taliban say
A man convicted of murder was shot by his victim's father in the Taliban's first public execution since their return to power in Afghanistan.

A Taliban spokesperson said the man was killed at a crowded sports stadium in south-western Farah province.

The father of the victim shot the man three times during the execution, a later statement from the Taliban spokesperson said.

Dozens of the group's leaders attended the shooting.

It comes weeks after judges were instructed to fully enforce Sharia law
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63884696
Jdsk
Posts: 24486
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Jdsk »

Eight months imprisonment, suspended for twelve months. Disqualified from driving for twelve months.

Sacoolas did not appear in person.

Jonathan
User avatar
al_yrpal
Posts: 11527
Joined: 25 Jul 2007, 9:47pm
Location: Think Cheddar and Cider
Contact:

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by al_yrpal »

CIA?

Al
Reuse, recycle, thus do your bit to save the planet.... Get stuff at auctions, Dump, Charity Shops, Facebook Marketplace, Ebay, Car Boots. Choose an Old House, and a Banger ..... And cycle as often as you can......
mumbojumbo
Posts: 1525
Joined: 1 Aug 2018, 8:18pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by mumbojumbo »

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.
Post Reply