Mum appeals for US suspect's return

[Jimbuna]

I apologise for the wall of text but for those who care to read it I am mindful that the whole article should be posted to assist in a full understanding.

I'm not about annoying our American members on here but this is potentially very damaging to our countries so called 'special' relationship and will do little other than remind the western world that as Trump repeats so often 'AMERICA FIRST'

It is being alleged the female driver had simply driven out of the base and travelled along the american side of the road (right) causing a head-on collision with the lad on the bike.

I wonder if this will be brought to Trumps attention and I can't help but remind him the UK is not NK and both our countries espouse to adhere to justice and fairness so hopefully common sense and fairness to the victims family will be shown.

The mother of a teenager killed in a car crash involving the wife of a US diplomat has urged her "as a mum" to return to the UK for questioning.

Harry Dunn, 19, died when his motorbike collided with a car near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on 27 August.

The diplomat's wife, who has diplomatic immunity, left the UK despite telling police that she had no plans to.

Mr Dunn's mother, Charlotte Charles, told the BBC the family had been left "utterly devastated" by his death.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said he has urged the US embassy to reconsider after the State Department said that diplomatic immunity is "rarely waived".

"I have called the US ambassador to express the UK's disappointment with their decision," he said.

Mrs Charles told the BBC's PM programme: "We're really hoping to try to get her back; from me, as a mum, to her, as a mum, you just hope that he [Mr Raab] can try to get through to her.

"We don't wish her any ill harm, but we don't understand how she can just get on a plane and leave our family just utterly devastated.

"If we don't get any luck over here, then we will go over there."

Under the 1961 Vienna Convention, diplomats and their family members are immune from prosecution in their host country, so long as they are not nationals of that country.

However, their immunity can be waived by the state that has sent them - in this case, the US.

There are more than 22,500 people in the UK who hold diplomatic immunity and most do not break the law.

But if a diplomat is guilty of an egregious breach, there are some things that a host country can do.

In a written Parliamentary answer in October 2017, then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson said: "The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.

"When instances of alleged criminal conduct are brought to our attention by the police, we ask the relevant foreign government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate.

"For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we seek the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat."

The problem here is that the US do not appear to have granted a waiver for this particular diplomatic spouse.

Instead, they have removed her from the UK before the British government could threaten to remove her itself if she did not submit to questioning.

As such, the US appears to have calculated that protecting the woman from identification, questioning and possible prosecution was more important than the potential risk to UK-US relations.

This is further evidence the adjective "special" should rarely be used to describe the alliance between both countries.

Supt Sarah Johnson said that the suspect "engaged fully" following the incident near RAF Croughton, a US Air Force communications station, and that she "had previously confirmed... that she had no plans to leave the country in the near future".

"The force is now exploring all opportunities through diplomatic channels to ensure that the investigation continues to progress," she said.

The US Embassy in London confirmed the diplomat's family had left the UK, but it could not confirm the identity of the people involved in the incident "due to security and privacy considerations".

The US State Department said it was in "close consultation" with British officials, but could not comment on "private diplomatic conversation" with the British government.

"We express our deepest sympathies and offer condolences to the family of the deceased in the tragic August 27 traffic accident involving a vehicle driven by the spouse of a U.S. diplomat assigned to the United Kingdom," a spokesperson said.

"Any questions regarding a waiver of immunity with regard to our diplomats and their family members overseas in a case like this receive intense attention at senior levels and are considered carefully given the global impact such decisions carry; immunity is rarely waived."

Andrea Leadsom MP, Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, tweeted that she had met Mr Dunn's family, who she described as "heartbroken". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-49945461

[JU_88]

A sad state of affairs, hopefully more consideration will be given to the victims family.
I cant say i ever understood this diplomatic immunity gag. I mean - I can understand that diplomats need to be protected from becoming political prisoners in some sketchy situations when those two nations relationship has soured.
But i don't see why they need to be so exempt from so much of the the host countries law.
But then thats just view I cast without any real knowledge on the subject.

[Skybird]

Diplomatic immunity should include diplomats not needing to give witness confessions beforee the hosts court in national law enforcement cases, should be imune to getting arrested and interviewed about their own nations internal affairs, means and carriers of data and messages between the diplomat and his government must be included in immunity. All this is okay and necessary, but obvious offending of the hosting nations laws, speeding in the traffic and causing accidents (BIG problem in many capitols! Foreign staff often thinks the streets are their personal racetracks and parking lots), criminal charges like rape and so on - these things should not be falling under diplomatic immuniy. That they get usually covered by these as well I can only explain by the risk that foreign diplomats get interrogated and pressed under charges of criminal law - and the opportunity then beign exploited to also interrogate them on own internal political stuff that should be covered by immunity.

Maybe it would be simler if one would consider more carefull with whom one forms ties and whom one lets gain diplomatic status in one's own capitol. In other words: be more chosey in accepting your guests. Its not as if these days envoys and ambassadors in place are really necessary. in case of wanted personal contact, on could arrnage a meeting between representatives in a third country, and silently and unnoticed form the public. A day's trip, and you are done.


Finally, I have a principle issue with the concept of maintaining a strong own security force in another country. The protection of a foreign ambassador is in the hosts own best interest, and it shoukld be the host caring for it, and doing so alone. ending your envoy with a strong presence of body guards, marines and so forth, in princ9ple is no dipllatic mission, but an invasion. If the sendign nation thinks they cannot count on the security of the nation they want to send somebody to, then maybe they just should not send somebody. This way, the reputation of s hosting nation and its credibility in guaranteeing diplloatic protection, is in hands of the hosting nation.


Most of it is just höfisches Gehabe: courtly, affected behaviour. To me, it just is stage thunder and mumbojumbo. As the peasant would even care for what foreign ambassadors and envoys are residing in their own capitol. Like film stars celebrate themselves when rewardingf ilm prizes, so does the creme de la creme of political high life. Maybe I am too Vulcan for this kind of stuff, but it means nothign to me. Poltical decisions should not be formed on grounds of someboy'S elses smile or polsiuhed manners, but becasue of facts, content, data, messages's core information. The bringer of the message is irrelevant.

Envoys and ambassadors, representatives of foreign nations should know that they are being held liable for their behaviour and acts. Then they can alter their behaviour accordingly so not to collide with local laws and not causing any drama by their own impertinence.


The fleeing mother told the police she would not leave, but did. I am strongly biased against her now. Immunity should not cover this incident.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The fleeing mother told the police she would not leave, but did. I am strongly biased against her now. Immunity should not cover this incident.

Agreed

[Platapus]

The US, or any issuing country can remove any immunity from any diplomat at any time. Normally this is done only for the most egregious and deliberate crimes.



If this woman had stayed in the country and brought to trial, what would be the most likely out come? What penalties are usually levied on UK tourists who would be involved in this sort of accident?



While the UK can PNG the Ambassador, that's a pretty serious diplomatic step. Even if the Ambassador remains in that position, the effects of this incident will severely affect his ability to perform his duties. A lot of diplomacy is done at the personal relationship level.


It will depend on exactly how much the UK cares about this incident. They can make a big deal about it or just sound like they are making a big deal about it.


Unfortunately, the US keeps confidential most information on foreign diplomats breaking US laws so it is difficult to determine that the past procedures are in these cases.



One option is that the US Ambassador to the UK may end up being recalled and replaced. The conduct of the Ambassador's wife may affect the future acceptance of the Ambassador's credentials.



However, it is not uncommon for the diplomatic relationships to overshadow the death of one individual. Shouldn't happen, but I wager it does.



How much is the UK willing to risk in its relationships with the US over this?

[Jimbuna]

I see it as, what price is a life?

[Skybird]

You volunteer to be guest in a foreign country - you play by its rules, and if not you are to be held accountable for the consequences. Thats simple, Platapus. This traffic accident was no state affair, it was a traffic accident - the American diplomatic side made it a state affair by evading the laws regulating such traffic accidents and consequences in Britain.


Its not as if she is under thread ti be skinned alive. But she ist subject to british laws in this incident, no doubt. Politics and state affairs have nothing to do with it, its a traffic accident, and she has to accept her role in it. A human person is dead. A family shattered.


British law knows rules and regulatons how to handle such accidents and exmainations. She should not enjoy immunty from having to undergo these.


The laws of the hosting nation count. If you do not like them, or are not ready to accept that - dont go there.

[STEED]

There will be no justice.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I see it as, what price is a life?

Well if she is guilty of violating Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act of 1988 and they adjudicate her with "No aggravating circumstances" the penalty is 1-2 years in prison.


She might, of course, be tried under different statutes. I am not a UK law expert.

[Sean C]

I feel very bad for the family and I certainly understand their desire for justice. But, nothing will bring the deceased back. Would putting this woman in jail for one or two years (which I feel is much too short a sentence for vehicular homicide or even manslaughter) make the family feel any better? Maybe a little. I don't know. It sounds callous to say it - but that almost doesn't even seem worth the trouble.



I think if I were in their place I would want this woman locked away for a very, very long time. Would that make me feel any better? Again, I don't know. And it's not something I ever wish to find out. This is just very sad.

[Jimbuna]

The 'caring mum' has been identified by the press.

I'll highlight what I consider to be the bullet (no pun intended) points for ease of reading.

The wife of a US diplomat who fatally hit a British teenager and left the country is Anne Sacoolas, Sky News can reveal.

Mrs Sacoolas, 42, has claimed diplomatic immunity and left the UK for America after 19-year-old Harry Dunn was killed in a head-on collision while riding his motorbike.

Police believe Mrs Sacoolas was on the wrong side of the road as she emerged from Northamptonshire's RAF Croughton on 27 August.

Sky News is naming her after earlier revealing a deal gives diplomats and their families at the US spy base diplomatic immunity.
Immunity usually only covers those diplomats and their dependants based in London.

However, Sky News has been told a special arrangement has been in place as early as 1994 for this particular base.

Government ministers have called for the American woman to return to the UK to answer questions about the incident.

Harry's father, Tim Dunn, told Sky News: "It's appalling, you can't have this precedence where you can have this immunity.

"It's basically saying you can do what you like and you'll be okay - it's wrong. That can't be right."

Harry's mother, Charlotte Charles, called it "inhumane".

Police told Sky News that initial findings showed Harry was on the correct side of the road, but that a woman who pulled out of the base onto the wrong side hit him head-on.

Sky News first revealed on Friday that the driver was believed to be the wife of a US diplomat.

Harry's family have launched a crowdfunding campaign to fight for justice, with one woman alone already pledging £5,000.

Ms Charles told Sky News: "If we don't get justice we'll try and use money to get the law changed so people can't kill and go away."

Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom, the family's local MP, has made an appeal for the woman to offer "closure" to the family.

She told Sky News: "I met with Harry's family on Friday and they're totally devastated.

"It's just the most appalling tragedy and my heart goes out to them. Anybody who met them would realise this is just heartbreaking.
"Obviously I'm going to do everything I can to make sure they get justice for Harry."

The US embassy has confirmed to Sky News that the woman has left the UK.

It is understood that someone on the American side told the family to go back to the US.

A spokesperson said: "This kind of case receives intense attention at senior levels and every case is considered carefully given the global impact such decisions carry."

Cabinet minister Robert Jenrick told Sky News that Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab had spoken to the US ambassador and "made clear our disappointment that the woman involved in this incident has left the UK using diplomatic immunity".

Sky News has tried to contact Mrs Sacoolas for comment but was unable to do so as she has not returned to her original address in the US.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...id=mailsignout

[JU_88]

Sentencing should depends on some other variables too really, she was driving on the wrong side, so yes it can just be a simple accident from that, and its ultimately her fault.
But what of the other details.
e.g was she doing anything else wrong?, speeding, talking on her phone? etc. was the victim being careless in any way? where did it happen, on a bend, straight, junction? how was visibility and road conditions?. What (if any) last minute actions were taken?
Is she the only living witness?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Nathaniel B.

I feel very bad for the family and I certainly understand their desire for justice. But, nothing will bring the deceased back. Would putting this woman in jail for one or two years (which I feel is much too short a sentence for vehicular homicide or even manslaughter) make the family feel any better? Maybe a little. I don't know. It sounds callous to say it - but that almost doesn't even seem worth the trouble.



I think if I were in their place I would want this woman locked away for a very, very long time. Would that make me feel any better? Again, I don't know. And it's not something I ever wish to find out. This is just very sad.

Its about the rule of law.


And as somebody who has been on the receiving end of such an incident (my fiance was killed by a drunk driver and got away with a ridiculous joke of an alibi penalty, he later drove drunk again and caused another crash with injured people; then, my mum had her pregnant sister and her newly wed husband wiped out out by another drunk ghost driver on the Autobahn, and he too got away extremely cheaply), I can tell you that at least functioning laws and court procedure help victims to avoid being hit a second time by the law cheating on them. You cannot imagine the shattered sense for justice and lost trust in the law with events like this not beign sanctioned according to the valid rules.This woman has bypassed the rules, she avoids the rules, she escapes from her share of respjnsiblity in the event. And this is bitter for the family whose life she has destroyed.


Not it does not brign back the dead. But it can help to sooth the soul a little bit. Just a little bit.


Myself, its roughly three deacdes ago. I have never forgiven the court, and I never will. The loss I have have gotten over, somehow, life moved on, but I stayed single. The disgust and rage for the judge who set the offender free for just a symbolic penalty and in "good hope", only to see the scumbag doing the same stunt again and again causing calamity - this skunk I will never stop to hate. And the murderer (I call it that, I hold people accoutnbale for how much they drink and not liockign away their car keys before they start) is better never left alone with me in one room.


This American woman must be brought to a British court or police investigation or whatever the British law commands. Not the American law - the British law is what counts here. Not for revenge. Not for retaliation. But because the law demands it. And decorum expects it.

[Jimbuna]

The prime minister has urged the US to reconsider giving a diplomat's wife immunity after she left the UK despite being a suspect in a fatal crash.

Anne Sacoolas is wanted for questioning over the death of motorcyclist Harry Dunn in Northamptonshire on 27 August.

The US State Department said diplomatic immunity was "rarely waived".

Boris Johnson said the UK would speak to the US ambassador and "if we can't resolve it then... I will be raising it myself with the White House".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-49961679

I'd like to think that Trump would agree with her extradition but I somehow doubt it taking into consideration a forthcoming election.

[August]

Police told Sky News that initial findings showed Harry was on the correct side of the road, but that a woman who pulled out of the base onto the wrong side hit him head-on.

I am certainly not supporting or condoning the womans actions in this case especially the running to avoid taking responsibility part, but having driven on English roads myself I can attest how disconcertingly easy it is to do this. Intersection turns seemed to be particularly troublesome. Every fiber of my being wanted to turn tight on a right turn and turn loose when going left. "Righty-tightey Lefty-loosey" took no small amount of effort to ignore such ingrained instincts.

Whoever decided to have everyone drive on the opposite side of the road, probably just to be different, should burn in hell.