Diplomatic Immunity

[Moley]

Unless there are additional details I've missed/not been released unlikely she'd get a conviction for causing death by dangerous driving? careless driving maybe.

Though I may be wrong on that.

This is the definition of causing death by dangerous driving: "the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's not the first time she drove on the wrong side of the road, she's not the only one and the base was taking active steps to remind Americans driving out of the base to drive on the correct side.

I don't know if this meets the test for the offence or if she would 'get away with' causing death by careless driving - which is defined as "the standard of driving falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver". So the same but without the 'it would be obvious' bit.

 

[ianh]

Causing death by dangerous driving carries a mandatory minimum one year jail term.

This would most likely be brought to court as a be a case of "Careless" driving and not "Dangerous" driving by the CPS as the requirements needed to get a conviction for dangerous driving under the Road Safety Act 2006 would be too high in this case vs getting a conviction for careless driving, irrespective of which definition the driver most accurately actually fell under.

EDIT - Thats just an opinion though

 

[Moley]

You are probably correct about the careless driving charge - and no one is getting extradited for a charge that likely carries a community service level punishment.

 

[Chris Wilson]

So you are suggesting that "security forces and secret agents" should be free to kill innocent people around the world through incompetence and stupidity with impunity?

If she had run down and killed someone whilst out shopping (in the USA), should she also be given a free pass?

What if she just happened to be off her head on drink or drugs at the time she killed someone (in the USA); would that be OK?


Interesting . . . and you think I am naive - you should spend less time watching TV

I haven't watched ANY TV at all since March, very little prior to then also. and I no longer own a TV, as I have mentioned in other posts. Our chummy relationship and shared reciprocal security measures with the USA are, hard be it perhaps for you to swallow, FAR above riling the US security forces over a tragic RTA. Bad things happen that get buried for the greater mutual good, that's life in the big bad world nowadays. The Israeli security forces have done some dire deeds in retribution to people on foreign soil, are you expecting Israel to ID them and send them back for trial? We will be doing the same no doubt. It's a sign of the strength of international relationships that things like this are buried, not of weakness, if you want to get retribution for the family of the deceased your only option is probably terrorism, let us know how that goes should you decide to go down that route

 

[Jean-F]

This is the definition of causing death by dangerous driving: "the standard of driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

I seem to recall reading somewhere that it's not the first time she drove on the wrong side of the road, she's not the only one and the base was taking active steps to remind Americans driving out of the base to drive on the correct side.

I don't know if this meets the test for the offence or if she would 'get away with' causing death by careless driving - which is defined as "the standard of driving falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver". So the same but without the 'it would be obvious' bit.

I asked a qualified solicitor whom I know, to define the difference between “careless driving” and “dangerous driving.”
He said that careless driving, which can also be termed as driving without due consideration, is when the standard of driving falls below an acceptable standard, whereas dangerous driving is when the standard of driving falls FAR below an accepted standard, he said that it depends on the Police Authority’s opinion of the incident as to what the driver will be charged with.

 

[Chris Wilson]

BRITONS DRIVING INTO TROUBLE ABROAD
- With tourists three times more likely to be involved in road accidents than locals, Foreign Office launches ‘Steer Clear of Trouble on Foreign Roads’ campaign -
Two thirds of Brits who have driven abroad have run into problems, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) research reveals today. With studies showing that tourists are three times more likely to be involved in a road accident than local drivers,* an FCO survey has shown that when driving abroad, nearly a third (31%) have driven on the wrong side of the road and more than one in 10 have driven the wrong way round a roundabout.

From: https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...se_Final.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3hRbeB7H47HzLBJLXkalmJ

 

[dowie]

The civil case is going ahead:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/02/16/harry-dunn-damages-claim-can-go-ahead-us-court-rules/

A US judge has cleared the way for Harry Dunn’s family to bring a civil claim for damages against his alleged killer due to her "refusal" to return to the UK.

Anne Sacoolas had applied to dismiss the case on the grounds it should be heard in the UK, despite her legal team admitting she would not agree to face trial due to a "concern" she would not "receive fair treatment".

[...]

In a judgment handed down on Tuesday, a judge dismissed Sacoolas's submissions that the UK was a "more convenient" forum, keeping the case in Virginia.

Judge Thomas Ellis also took into account the "firm support" of UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, who submitted a letter to the court which read: "It is of course for the US courts to decide the issue of venue but for our part the British Government takes the view that British citizens can bring their case in whichever court they think appropriate... I hope therefore (the Dunn family's) action in the United States is able to proceed."

Also, this bit below from wiki isn't clear - like it was reported months ago that she had worked for the CIA, but... IF she was working for the CIA at the time then she shouldn't have had diplomatic immunity, the diplomatic immunity was only granted as a result of an anomaly where family members of staff working at the annex were covered (in general) but staff themselves were only covered (as of 1995) for stuff done in the course of their work (which is really how it should be - they're not really diplomats nor operating under some diplomatic cover at an embassy or something they're here in a friendly country and should be covered for their spying work only).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn

In February 2021, the Virginia court held a hearing for the case against Sacoolas. It was revealed in the court that Sacoolas was an employee of the CIA. This revelation raises doubts about her claim for diplomatic immunity. It is because under an agreement between the UK and the US in 1995, any administrative and technical staff from the US would not have diplomatic immunity.

 

[Angilion]

[..] Also, this bit below from wiki isn't clear - like it was reported months ago that she had worked for the CIA, but... IF she was working for the CIA at the time then she shouldn't have had diplomatic immunity, the diplomatic immunity was only granted as a result of an anomaly where family members of staff working at the annex were covered (in general) but staff themselves were only covered (as of 1995) for stuff done in the course of their work (which is really how it should be - they're not really diplomats nor operating under some diplomatic cover at an embassy or something they're here in a friendly country and should be covered for their spying work only). [..]

Spying on friendly countries is part of their work. Countries have always spied on friendly countries. It's just that friendly countries agree to pretend it doesn't happen.

 

[dowie]

Spying on friendly countries is part of their work. Countries have always spied on friendly countries. It's just that friendly countries agree to pretend it doesn't happen.

I don't see how that is relevant to anything posted - the point here is re: immunity, it doesn't make any difference whether her job (if she was employed at that time) was spying on China or Germany.

 

[stockhausen]

Spying on friendly countries is part of their work. Countries have always spied on friendly countries. It's just that friendly countries agree to pretend it doesn't happen.

Do "friendly" countries also "pretend" that "intelligence" operatives can be forgiven for killing innocent people in RTAs as a "part of their work"?

 

[Angilion]

Do "friendly" countries also "pretend" that "intelligence" operatives can be forgiven for killing innocent people in RTAs as a "part of their work"?

When the imbalance in power is large enough, yes. Power is everything. The USA has a lot more of it than the UK. So they get what they want.

But my point was that being in a friendly country is not proof that she wasn't working as a spy. That was all.

 

[stockhausen]

When the imbalance in power is large enough, yes. Power is everything. . . .

I wonder why courts don't accept that defence if used by a mugger
It is almost as if they believe in the rule of law - VERY odd.

Ahhh, on reflection I see where you are coming from, power is everything until someone stronger, more corrupt, less ethical comes along - got ya

 

[Angilion]

I wonder why courts don't accept that defence if used by a mugger
It is almost as if they believe in the rule of law - VERY odd.

Ahhh, on reflection I see where you are coming from, power is everything until someone stronger, more corrupt, less ethical comes along - got ya

You can "see" what you like, but that won't change what I wrote or reality. That reflection you see is your own mind, not mine.

If the mugger had more power than the courts, the courts wouldn't be able to do anything. "rule of law" means nothing without enough power to enforce those laws because without that power the laws don't rule. You're the person who has brought up corruption and ethics and wrongly attributed them to me. I was talking about power.

When two countries with vastly different amounts of power disagree, is that imbalance in power irrelevant? If so, why? And how?


And I'll repeat myself:

[..] But my point was that being in a friendly country is not proof that she wasn't working as a spy. That was all.

 

[dowie]

But my point was that being in a friendly country is not proof that she wasn't working as a spy. That was all.

The point in the post was that she might have been working over here as a spy though???

That is quite fundamental it seems:

If she was not working here as a spy then there is an anomaly whereby she had broad diplomatic immunity as a family member of a CIA officer posted to the listening station but her husband only has it relating to his work as a CIA officer, ergo the US were legally right (even if not morally) to remove her. This anomaly has since been resolved as a direct result of this case - in future someone involved in an RTA outside the base whether spy or family member of will not have immunity.

If she was working here as a CIA officer posted to that facility then as per the agreement between the UK and US she only has diplomatic immunity relating to her work there at the US listening station, she doesn't have broad immunity thus if she were to get into a bar brawl, or rob a bank or indeed get involved in an RTA and kill someone as she did then that limited immunity shouldn't cover her.

There is some indication that she might in fact have still been working for the CIA at the time, ergo there is a question over whether it was in fact correct for her to have been able to claim diplomatic immunity.

That friendly countries spy on each other is a complete red herring as far as this immunity question is concerned - it doesn't matter who she was employed to spy on via the listening station - in fact, the immunity is likely there in the case of friendly countries, if they are (through their activities) breaking the law of some EU countries which the UK has extradition treaties with for example. The UK and US officially don't spy on each other, they have access to each other's programs, intelligence etc... there are diplomats in the state dept/foreign office who no doubt feed back info about various politicians, they want to know where they stand on different issues affecting the relationship no doubt etc.. but there isn't any need for any covert activities against each other given the level of coordination and information sharing etc.. But... for the sake of argument, supposing you do image that her (possible) employment at this listening station involved some spying on the UK, perhaps she's keeping tabs on the governor of the bank of England or Boris Johnson's communications or something (and they've kept it quiet from any UK personnel presumably posted there and with access to their intercept programs) well even then it doesn't make any difference - she might have been popping out to drive and collect lunch or something during the working day, the RTA outside the base shoudln't count.

The point about the UK being a friendly country is simply why such a facility might exist here and why only limited immunity is needed - in say Russia or some ****-hole-istan country then they would want full diplomatic immunity and/or wouldn't have a base or big listening station like that in the first place rather perhaps some people posted to the Embassy with full immunity.

 

[jpaul]

Amazing that her solicitor is now saying she should not return because the potential penalty is much higher in the UK (ie doesn't like UK law),
and her client has apparently pre-judged herself as not being reckless; that should be down to court to judge ? (in the reverse situation could uk citizens use a similar plea)
- her solicitor gave interview on r4 law in action/ joshua rosenberg this evening too.

They should be considering whether the US base is partly culpable for not reminding personnel to drive on left, and for that matter, the accused not putting aide memoires in place,
especially since she is driving children around.

 

[Rroff]

They should be considering whether the US base is partly culpable for not reminding personnel to drive on left,

Usually they have whacking great signs on the exit and arrows on the road on the approaches to the base - though looking on street view they seem to be missing in 2011 - no idea if they are there currently or not.

EDIT: Looks like they have arrows on the road at least in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpltfykz4w

Though looks like these are new post the incident from what I can make out.

 

[jpaul]

Interesting -

my question to her is had you driven on the wrong-side before, and what did you do to make sure you didn't repeat that ?
personally used to put a cloth on the steering wheel for a while, as a reminder, to see, next time i drove off, until it was embedded in the brain

 

[Dirk Diggler]

nvm

 

[Semple]

Sounds like Sacoolas will face trial next month, albeit all via video link in the US. Although it's very unlikely when she's found guilty that she'll travel back to the UK to serve a sentence. Whole thing seems like a bit of a sham and a waste of taxpayers money. If they can't get her back to the UK to face a trial then they shouldn't bother.

 

[200sols]

Let's trade Assange for her.