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a family or household member was given DI through that status, they retained it on a personal basis and it could not be withdrawn by implication eg because it had been withdrawn from the head of the family.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.Carlton green wrote: ↑21 Oct 2022, 4:36pmI’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.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
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.
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