The Queen is, but that doesn't apply to the others.
That said, I seriously doubt the police are going to go marching in there to extradite him on a case with only an accusation.
The Royals
- Thread starter Cryogenic
- Start date
That said, I seriously doubt the police are going to go marching in there to extradite him on a case with only an accusation.
Soldato
Oi Yanks, give us Anne Sacoolas and you can have him.
I imagine they'll just try and ignore it...
And yeah totally, America needs to actually participate in some of the treaties it signs up for.
And yeah totally, America needs to actually participate in some of the treaties it signs up for.
The US doesn't extradite any of it's own Citizens for foreign trial. It never has and likely never will. They have requested plenty of extraditions from other countries and been granted them most of the time.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Jun 2020
- Posts
- 2,410
Forget about the Queen.
She works for me, for I am god.
She works for me, for I am god.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,176
It's only a Civil Lawsuit, so the Prince will be ignoring that.
She lives in Australia, however filed the lawsuit in the US, so I'm wondering why she didn't file the lawsuit in the UK?
Commissario
It might be a matter of jurisdiction if it happened in American territory or on an American registered boat/aircraft, or it might be that it's easier to do it there.
If he doesn't attend court to defend himself (or send a representative / video evidence etc) then she is likely to get a default judgement in her favour. The question then becomes what action can be taken to recover any compenstation she would be awarded in the US.
I’ve been following a similar thread on a U.S. forum, below is a post from a British poster;
As already explained Prince Andrew won't be going anywhere.
In 1978, a US court ruled that Prince Charles was immune from US civil proceedings as the son of a ruling monarch and the heir apparent, and the same will apply to Prince Andrew.
In 2016, in response to allegations of trafficking for sexual exploitation made by Ms Giuffre’s lawyers and an unconnected third party, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that, following a review of the “available evidence”, they would not proceed to a full investigation. This decision was recently reviewed and upheld.
The US also has to tread lightly due to damaging diplomatic consequences. As such, the FBI, for legal and/or political reasons, would most likely hand any evidence to the British authorities for a domestic prosecution. The CPS would then have jurisdiction to prosecute the Prince in relation to the alleged incident that occurred in the UK and, as well as any alleged incidents that occurred overseas.
However given the lack of evidence other than accusations, it is unlikely that enough hard evidence could be produced to warrant any action whatsoever, and a Civil Action would also be unlikely to succeed.
As already explained Prince Andrew won't be going anywhere.
In 1978, a US court ruled that Prince Charles was immune from US civil proceedings as the son of a ruling monarch and the heir apparent, and the same will apply to Prince Andrew.
In 2016, in response to allegations of trafficking for sexual exploitation made by Ms Giuffre’s lawyers and an unconnected third party, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that, following a review of the “available evidence”, they would not proceed to a full investigation. This decision was recently reviewed and upheld.
The US also has to tread lightly due to damaging diplomatic consequences. As such, the FBI, for legal and/or political reasons, would most likely hand any evidence to the British authorities for a domestic prosecution. The CPS would then have jurisdiction to prosecute the Prince in relation to the alleged incident that occurred in the UK and, as well as any alleged incidents that occurred overseas.
However given the lack of evidence other than accusations, it is unlikely that enough hard evidence could be produced to warrant any action whatsoever, and a Civil Action would also be unlikely to succeed.
They can have Andrew when they send us Anne Sacoolas.I’ve been following a similar thread on a U.S. forum, below is a post from a British poster;
As already explained Prince Andrew won't be going anywhere.
In 1978, a US court ruled that Prince Charles was immune from US civil proceedings as the son of a ruling monarch and the heir apparent, and the same will apply to Prince Andrew.
In 2016, in response to allegations of trafficking for sexual exploitation made by Ms Giuffre’s lawyers and an unconnected third party, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that, following a review of the “available evidence”, they would not proceed to a full investigation. This decision was recently reviewed and upheld.
The US also has to tread lightly due to damaging diplomatic consequences. As such, the FBI, for legal and/or political reasons, would most likely hand any evidence to the British authorities for a domestic prosecution. The CPS would then have jurisdiction to prosecute the Prince in relation to the alleged incident that occurred in the UK and, as well as any alleged incidents that occurred overseas.
However given the lack of evidence other than accusations, it is unlikely that enough hard evidence could be produced to warrant any action whatsoever, and a Civil Action would also be unlikely to succeed.
Yeah I mean, I imagine this is going to boil down to a simple case of 'his word vs hers'. With these allegations being both historic and lacking any forensics (I assume) I don't imagine there's any realistic possibility of him being prosecuted.
Caporegime
This is why people looking at rape/sexual assault conviction rates and then saying its appalling are missing the fact that the justice system requires evidence and its also very very hard when the offence is a matter of perspective in many cases. Someone breaking into your house isn't going to be able to argue you invited them in but told them to break a window while they were at it. Someone saying you raped them when you thought you were having consensual sex isn't so cut and dry.
Historic cases are even harder.
Googling around for precedents about the Sacoolas case, I came across this Quora answer;
Can the US seriously expect the UK to extradite citizens to the US when the US refuses to extradite Anne Sacoolas?
Generally in the USA people don’t go to prison for traffic accidents.
She is being charged with dangerous driving for driving on the wrong side of the road.
It is understandable that having driven all her life in the USA, that she would make this mental lapse in the UK where driving is on the left and not the right.
I’ve committed this lapse myself. Maybe someone should try to extradite me.
A prison sentence of a decade or more should be aimed at criminals. Sacoolas isn’t a criminal.
Anne Sacoolas was right to run - The Llanelli Herald
Comments now shutdown as nothing new is being added and most commenters have a weak understanding of USA and UK law.
Soldato
Unfortunately until she stands trial in a civilised way, we will never know the truth. Efforts have been taken to conceal her mobile phone records for example, which could indicate she was on a call at the time of the distraction.
I just feel aweful for the parents involved. Running is such a dishonourable thing to do.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,176
The claim show it happened in both the US and UK? Probably more lucrative in the US no doubt
No action can be taken, there is no treaty in place between the two countries, in terms of money recovery.
The US government won't be extriditing anyone for a civil case.
Caporegime
The whole thing stinks tbh, I just hope the guilt ruins her mentally so she's at least paying for it in some way.
There are many like her in the UK who have the same rights as she did, if it happened again there would be the same result unless some law has been changed which i doubt,
Nope, just being a member of the Royal Family won't exempt him. Though this is a civil, not criminal case and that he isn't technically exempt doesn't rules out stuff happening behind the scenes. Unless they have a slam dunk case the US authorities probably won't want to make a big fuss over trying to extradite him.
What on earth are you talking about, the US has extradition treaties with a bunch of different countries.
Nope and it doesn't require a change in the law, it's down to an agreement between the US and UK. The families of intelligence officers were previously treated as though they were family members of US embassy staff and had immunity whereas the intelligence officers themselves didn't outside of the base. That has now changed.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53500449