Not at all, most people would put their close friend before their country so it's a natural extension of the argument that family should be given immunity, I consider it to be a weak slippery slope argument.
Diplomatic Immunity
- Thread starter Dugganator
- Start date
Not at all, most people would put their close friend before their country so it's a natural extension of the argument that family should be given immunity, I consider it to be a weak slippery slope argument.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...g-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/
A first time offender is unlikely to be imprisoned for a lethal but momentary lapse in concentration. That may seem too forgiving but: (a) all drivers make mistakes and the margin between a near miss and killing someone can be thin; (b) juries would acquit drivers in all but the most serious cases if they knew the driver would be imprisoned for several years (the offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving were introduced because juries wouldn't convict drivers for manslaughter).
Good link, although depending no how you read it, I'd argue it shows a custodial sentence is very likely.
It comes down to whether you consider what she did to be "careless" or "not far short of dangerous". Because in the case of the latter, the link shows a custodial sentence as the most likely outcome.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
Sorry but that is just nonsensical in the context of the thread. You seem to have failed to grasp the role and life of a diplomat (as outlined in Werewolf's post)
A diplomat is peripatetic by nature. They do not stay in their home country. They are stationed overseas, often for years at a time. The ONLY people that any government is going to sanction and pay for to be with him/her during that time is their wife/husband and children (should they have them).
No one else, ever. Not their mother, father, cousin, bestest mate in all the world, gardener, next door neighbour et al...
It's not the beginning of a slippery slope as that slope doesn't exist in the real world, only in your imagination. D.I. has only been given to the spouse and children of those stationed with him/her. No sensible person will or has ever argued that there is any merit in extending it outside of that.
Last edited:
I think this is quite a massive oversight, it seems we have no control over our borders when criminals can just bypass immigration and customs.
Werewolf's argument was that diplomatic immunity was necessary for family because they may be used as leverage against the diplomat, but anyone close to the diplomat could be used as leverage so I don't think that justifies diplomatic immunity. Whether people have argued for diplomatic immunity for friends is irrelevant, you are missing the point.
Last edited:
IIRC there was some suspected paedophile in the 80s too, I can't find the link tho...
This guy wasn't really a diplomat - he apparently didn't appear on the London diplomatic list but was afforded some protection because of the nature of his work as a an employee of a US intelligence service. Now there might be some reason for diplomatic immunity to be extended to some US personnel like that serving on US bases in the UK carrying out that line of work as it can of course involve breaking the law - you don't want a situation whereby say Germany wants to extradite one of the NSA/CIA types using a European arrest warrant etc.. after some leaker reveals some corporate espionage etc..
But the wife and kids being covered too and for something unrelated - that's stretching it a bit - this isn't some high profile diplomat stationed at the US embassy in London and there are different rules for say consulates etc.. and in this case some agreement re: staff members at a US base. The police are going to play it cautiously but AFAIK it isn't 100% clear that she actually warranted having any diplomatic immunity in the first place - perhaps why the US were rather keen to get her out of there ASAP.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 28,291
- Location
- Boston, Lincolnshire
Only had to go to page 2 to see this!
Seems DI isn't just limited to immediate family
And I'm not sure what the lawyer for the Dunn family means by this
I know they are saying DI no longer applies since she returned to the US or is he saying she wasn't entitled to it in the first place?
And I'm not sure what the lawyer for the Dunn family means by this
I know they are saying DI no longer applies since she returned to the US or is he saying she wasn't entitled to it in the first place?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
Yes, as I stated before, the Foreign Office confirmed he definitely had D.I. even though not being on the list. I also said before that he worked on what is considered a spy station, so not a traditional diplomat who works out of an embassy.
It is not stretching it that his wife and kids also have D.I. as that has always been the case. Those have always been the rules. It doesn't matter that it doesn't fit our particular narrative.
What would have been questionable is if they had been given D.I. retrospectively, after the accident. If I were to suspect anything untoward then it would be this but as that has not been established then I just stick to the 'facts' in evidence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,709
- Location
- Under the Hill
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-driver-who-fled-uk-devastated-by-fatal-crash
Seems to be confirmed that DI has been waived, possibly because she returned to the US.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
No, she is not in trouble now. They are just stating the obvious in that she doesn't have D.I. now as she is back on home soil.
As President Trumps photographed notes showed, the US have no intention whatsoever of sending her back to the UK to face trial. No matter what sympathetic or conciliatory words are issued to the media.
Well yes it is questionable - like I said he’s not actually a diplomat. Someone working at say a consulate might have a different level of immunity compared with say someone working at an embassy. In this case it isn’t even that - it’s a guy who isn’t even a diplomat and his wife is claiming immunity - that’s dubious, it seems like the UK government might have messed up here and the wife arguably shouldn’t have been considered to have had immunity in this incident.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
Not necessarily. As long as her husband is still in the U.K. and employed by the U.S. government, thereby maintaining his diplomatic immunity then as soon as she enters British airspace then her D.I. is automatically reinstated.
Should she in the unlikely event return as a civilian without her or husband employed by the U.S. with D.I attached then she could be subject to prosecution.
I think the family as a whole left AFAIK. But regardless this isn't necessarily true - she might not have been entitled to it in the first place - it varies, I doubt her husband has a diplomatic passport, he's not on the London diplomatic list nor working in the embassy - his immunity perhaps ought to have been more limited and just to cover his work activities... the wife/kids ostensibly aren't really any different to say those of a military officer stationed in the UK for example. There is a reasonable argument that she shouldn't have been considered to have had any immunity in the first place.
Brief summary on wiki for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity
It is likely the husband was travelling on an "official passport" rather than a diplomatic one issued to actual diplomats serving with say the US embassy. The scope of his immunity might not necessarily have had to be considered as broad as you assume with regards to family members also being covered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
I have made no assumptions, I have only stated the official position and what has been stated by the Foreign Office; while in this country the husband has D.I. and so does the wife.
Unfortunately for the family it really is as simple as that.
Yes that was the position of the government at the time - the point was that it didn’t have to be and isn’t necessarily that simple.
It doesn’t necessarily stop the family from still persuing this - whether that means civil action in the US etc...
It would also be nice if the UK government/parliament reviewed how these cases are handled in future - we shouldn’t just be allowing/assuming blanket immunity like this for the wife of someone who isn’t even a diplomat at an embassy. It doesn’t serve any real purpose - at best he might need some limited immunity in relation to his work that’s all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2018
- Posts
- 3,576
While I understand the families desire to do all they can in bringing Anne Sacoolas to some kind of justice, in reality they have little chance of a successful civil action (as in the OJ Simpson case). One main reason is because the offence did not take place on U.S. soil.
The position of the person with D.I. is irrelevant. They could be employed as support staff like a cook or driver, once they have been given that status then the rules apply. The rules regarding spouses will simply not change because of this tragic case.
The best chance for any kind of normal justice for the family was that D.I. was waived while she was still in the U.K. She seemed to have had advice, probably from quite high up as to what she should do.
That seems to differ with the opines in the press from some lawyers - I mean I saw one opinion along the lines of if she was considered by the US to have some immunity then she was on official business and the US could be sued.
It isn't irrelevant, I've provided a brief summary to show why above - as pointed out consular staff can be treated differently to embassy staff etc.. there can be a different scope to diplomatic immunity, sometimes it might be more narrow and only in relation to the line of work - arguably in this case it probably should have been. She wasn't necessarily formally given that status, the police/UK government initially reacted as though she had it and then she was bundled back to the US ASAP. That is something that can certainly be reviewed.