Diplomatic Immunity?

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
pete75
Posts: 16356
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by pete75 »

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.
+1
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Carlton green
Posts: 3630
Joined: 22 Jun 2019, 12:27pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Carlton green »

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.
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.
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.
Psamathe
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Psamathe »

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

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

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
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
Posts: 17616
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 10 Dec 2022, 11:49am
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
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.
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).

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
Bonefishblues
Posts: 10978
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by Bonefishblues »

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/ ... -the-uk--2

Absolute immunity, park with impunity. :D
thirdcrank
Posts: 36764
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

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

Re: Diplomatic Immunity?

Post by thirdcrank »

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
shoulder-length brown hair and wore a black trouser suit
The defendant is now on bail for almost a year awaiting trial.

https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/us-serv ... l-9290566/
Post Reply