Police chiefs ask US to waive immunity for envoy's wife in crash.

a reply to: dragonridr

The only reason i can think of is the state department figured she wouldnt get a fair trial.

The Justice system in Great Britian is rated fairer here than in America.

World Justice Project website.

Top 10 countries where Justice prevails

So its just been announced on the uk news that this lady will not be made to return and face justice.

Absolutely diabolical..... The fact that the us isnt sending her back just boils my piss!, this is not a diplomatic issue, it is a criminal offence. Its not like she was suspected of spying or anything, in my eyes they should enforce her return. I would wholeheartedly agree to them protecting her on diplomatic issues, whatever they may be, but this woman comitted a crime that cost an innocent lad his life.

This basically leaves the family 2 choices, they can probably sell everything they have and spend every penny to convince an already warped us judicial system that this woman was in the wrong.
Or..... They walk away and accept she gets away scott free.

I dont want anybody to think im wanting her lynched, but at least give the lad his fair justice, his family fair justice......

The annoying thing is, she would have been given the lightest possible charge because of her status. Strings would have been pulled, favors called upon and she would have been home, no worse off but at least a level of justice was acknowledged.

Disgusting!!

originally posted by: Jason79
Since when are traffic accidents a criminal offence unless the person was under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Seems to me the embassy made the correct call telling her to leave.

Well there is also an offence of causing death by dangerous driving which does not necessarily involve drugs or alcohol as well as various other slightly lesser offences.
As the police cannot at the moment investigate because she has fled the uk i guess we wont know her version.
Disgusting.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire


The annoying thing is, she would have been given the lightest possible charge because of her status. Strings would have been pulled, favors called upon and she would have been home, no worse off but at least a level of justice was acknowledged.

Disgusting!!

The maximum sentence even us norms face is only upto 5 years, not something most rational people would consider barbaric, if your actions/negligence caused the death of someone, she must return and face due process, at the very least she has to have her immunity revoked and told she will be arrested if she ever enters the country again.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire

100% agree.
This is an abuse of diplomatic immunity.
Disgusting indeed.

They've just announced she doesn't have diplomatic immunity.....and now she's devestated and wants to meet the boys parents.

news.sky.com...

CX.

a reply to: CX
That is excellent news.

The family made it clear from the onset that they just wanted a proper account of what happened to their son (as any loving family would).

The removal to America of the key witness made this impossible. They are clearly not after revenge or compensation and even expressed their concern for the emotional state of the driver and her family given the terrible circumstances.

I'm curious to know to what degree Mrs Sacoolas was a free agent in the decision first to leave and now to return.

I don't think the UK'll be able to get her back...

a reply to: TheGrandDuchyOfNevada

I now think so too. It looks like Harry's parents are going to America to possibly confront her there.

a reply to: TheGrandDuchyOfNevada

I dont think it was about getting her back, it was about her facing responsibility for her actions and showing remorse, both of which she has now done.

It was never likely to face a criminal trial anyway because of who she was.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
a reply to: TheGrandDuchyOfNevada

I dont think it was about getting her back, it was about her facing responsibility for her actions and showing remorse, both of which she has now done.

I disagree. Although she has expressed remorse for killing the young man she has not commented on the confounding offence of using diplomatic immunity to escape the country and thwart the investigation.

originally posted by: Catch_a_Fire
It was never likely to face a criminal trial anyway because of who she was.

Again I'm not sure that's right.
Northamptonshire Police have made it clear that they would like to speak to Anne Sacoolas and would take the death of Harry Dunn to a "judicial conclusion".
As I understand it, the UK and US authorities both now declare (for reasons I don't understand) that she no longer has diplomatic immunity.

a reply to: EvilAxis

I didnt realise the us had declared her DI null, I see now, thanks. I wonder what changed, that end.

I still think she would only have received a non custodial reprimand, but, who knows?

Is the fact, we were led to believe, she was advised/told/ordered to leave, still holding water?...... Or did she lie (using her DI), leave, and the us realises this, so have flipped on their view of actions took? Im a bit confused by it all.

a reply to: Catch_a_Fire
It is very confusing, not least for the family of Harry Dunn.

I read that Anne Sacoolas was granted diplomatic immunity following the crash and then returned to the USA despite assuring police she would stay in the UK.

It appears that the UK police may seek to extradite her now the DI has mysteriously gone away. There seems to be some doubt as to whether she was ever entitled to DI.

According to one source,

Mrs Sacoolas was actually given protection under a bilateral UK-US agreement which allows US spies to work from the UK and spy for the US without fear of prosecution.

The deal is separate from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the international treaty signed by 192 states which enables diplomats to carry out their jobs without fear of coercion or harassment by the host country.

The UK government, Foreign Office, Johnson, and US government have all looked bad in their handling of this, not least Trump's embarrassing 'accidents happen' speech while accidentally revealing to the press his prompt card: (If raised) Note, as Secretary Pompeo told Foreign Secretary Raab, that the spouse of the US government employee will not return to the United Kingdom.

The Dunn parents and lawyer are now in the US and are willing to meet Sacoolas. They have also said they will campaign for diplomatic immunity reform so others don't suffer as they have. Reform is overdue - it is frequently used to escape fines and punishments for legal infringements. Between 2003 and 2016 foreign diplomats used it to dodge more than £95m ($125m) in UK congestion and parking fines, and it has been used to escape charges of sexual abuse, murder and kidnapping.

a reply to: EvilAxis

Thanks for that, i wonder if this familys case is going to become a subject of another us political argument, reps wanting one resolution, the dems wanting another. Seems odd on the change of stance.

The sudden change of stance is odd. Makes me wonder if the DI was a convenient fiction to get her out of the country and it had to be quickly dropped when the family started taking legal advice. Just speculating...

I'm guessing her husband works for the CIA.

The family have said they wish to meet Ms Sacoolas' on condition that she returns to the UK. Failing that, I think they might seek justice within the States. It's now about seven weeks since the accident.

I gather that an individual granted diplomatic immunity cannot themselves waive their immunity. I don't know if that had any bearing on Ms Sacoolas' decision to leave the UK.

I also gather that Ms Sacoolas has a previous conviction for being distracted behind the wheel near her home in Virginia in November 2006.

Another day but still no response from Ms Sacoolas to the Dunn family plea that she return to the UK and face justice.

Instead, some sort of paper apology was issued by her lawyers and Ms Sacoolas is upset about all the media attention.

I read today that she left the UK on a state-sponsored private jet, although this was contradicted elsewhere.

We were told that she was "given protection under a bilateral UK-US agreement which allows US spies to work from the UK and spy for the US without fear of prosecution."

It's possible I suppose that she is herself a spy. If not, why was she granted the immunity only her husband was entitled to?

Diplomatic Immunity under the Vienna Convention, which also confers immunity on a diplomat's family, does not apply in this case.

Seems likely, as the Dunn's lawyer now suspects, that pressure was put on the UK to get her out of the country. They have asked the Foreign Office to hand over all documents about the decision to grant her diplomatic immunity and may take it to a judicial review in the High Court. Apparently Secretary of State, Dominic Raab "didn't like the sound of that".

Meanwhile, the family have now been 'urgently' invited to a meeting at the White House. Understandably, they are cautious, not wanting to be fobbed off again.

So now the motive behind the urgency of the invitation is revealed. The CIA continue to heap insult upon injury, this time attempting to solve their problem with a media coup: Invite the family to the White House on the pretext of helping them in their quest for justice, then spring it on them that the killer of their son is in the next room, complete with media crew on hand to capture her emotional apology.

Job done! What a breathtakingly cynical disregard for the wishes and emotional state of the family! To what extent was Mrs Sacoolas a willing participant in this stunt, I wonder?

Fortunately, the ambush was thwarted by their lawyer who made it clear that a meeting under these circumstances without a therapist and mediators present was inappropriate, and reiterated the need for Ms Sacoolas to return to the UK. But US national security adviser Robert O’Brien told them “quite emphatically” that Ms Sacoolas “is never coming back” to Britain.

Harry Dunn's mother took some comfort from her final words with Trump:

After telling the President that Mrs Sacoolas should stay away, Mrs Charles revealed: 'I spoke directly to Mr Trump for a good few minutes. He did seem sincere, he didn't try to interrupt me or cut me off.

'At the end of the meeting it was him who took my hand and I squeezed it very tight. I said: 'You need to see, if this was your son you'd be doing the same thing'. He said: 'yes, yes I would' and I said: 'So please, please, do the right thing. Just try'. He squeezed my hand back and said he would 'try to push from another angle'.'

It was 100% the right call who do you think the embassy serves?

a reply to: sprockets2000

When you say 'right', do you mean morally or legally?
I don't believe it was either, particularly as the claim of diplomatic immunity appears to have been a lie.


Imagine you are American. Perhaps you are. Imagine you have a young son. Perhaps you do. Imagine he is killed by a foreigner driving on the wrong side of the road. Imagine the foreigner pretends to have diplomatic immunity and flees the country.

Would you say it was 100% the right call?