Topic: Diplomatic Immunity - Harry Dunn

[Andy82lfc]

Thought I'd open a thread to discuss as it's getting a bit lost in the Trump one.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/16/harry-dunn-parents-vow-to-continue-fight-for-justice-after-trump-meeting-sacoolas

As others mentioned, seems like Trump basically tried to ambush them, get a meeting, photo, job done. To be honest I don't think ever going to see Trump was a good idea in the first place as it was always going to be like this, but suppose they are clinging onto hope he will do something.

All a horrible situation, they have lost their child and the woman is pretty much just hiding behind diplomatic immunity, only coming out with a statement when pushed with the 'revoking' of the immunity. I hope the parents and their adviser keep up the media pressure to get some justice as it must be a horrifying situation for them.

[cdav]

Seems some reports that the husband of the accused works for the NSA/ CIA and she is not entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention. But, there may be an agreement between us and the USA that effectively grants the same immunity- which could be the reason for all the secrecy.

Its an absolutely appalling situation

[Iska]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3070873.stm

It seems like a weird situation but this sort of thing does happen from time to time.  It’s entirely up to the sending state whether it revokes the immunity - but there’s no way the US will do this.  She can be sued in the US courts I believe, but a criminal investigation is probably out of the question.

An ambush photo op is pretty low but who’d expect anything better.

[Andy82lfc]

Seems some reports that the husband of the accused works for the NSA/ CIA and she is not entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Vienna convention. But, there may be an agreement between us and the USA that effectively grants the same immunity- which could be the reason for all the secrecy.

Its an absolutely appalling situation

It is really messed up.

Yeah I heard about that. Also was hearing about the Murder of Yvonne Fletcher in the 80's in which diplomatic immunity was raised (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher), however in that case, which was very different, lots of incidents followed including the severing ties with Libya and allowing the US to bomb Libya from our bases. Obviously the US is a lot different but the point still must stand in that diplomatic immunity also comes with the notion that you have to abide by the laws of the country. You can't just kill someone's child and run away from all responsibility surely?

I think the crazy thing also is that she obviously didn't intent to kill him, it was an accident, but has got advice to just do a runner as she was brought back on a military/US plane. I understand her being scared but to now leave the family like this without facing up to anything is appalling. She was obviously up for that photo op too so she can look somewhat apologetic, as unless she is a complete sociopath she must surely be affected by it all.

[Crosby Nick]

It’s a horrible situation that’s being badly handled. Clearly it was a genuine accident but if any of us had done it then obviously there would be criminal investigations to go through. Being able to run away from that just because of who you are married to seems fundamentally unfair.

Not really a surprise that the US have pretty much washed their hands of it. I feel for the parents, I’m sure they’re not wanting vengeance, just for the correct procedures to apply but can’t see it apart from as said above, pursuing something through the US courts.

[Iska]

Obviously the US is a lot different but the point still must stand in that diplomatic immunity also comes with the notion that you have to abide by the laws of the country. You can't just kill someone's child and run away from all responsibility surely?

Unpalatable as it is here, across-the-board immunity is the right solution.  Could you imagine trying to operate an embassy in Tehran, or 1960s Moscow, if your guys were fair game for the local police.

[killer-heels]

Its a horrible story and unsurprising the result thus far. If the situation was the other way around we would be boarding our citizens to the States at the earliest possibility. One rule for them, another for the rest of the world irrespective of who the President is.

[stewil007]

Unpalatable as it is here, across-the-board immunity is the right solution.  Could you imagine trying to operate an embassy in Tehran, or 1960s Moscow, if your guys were fair game for the local police.

But this isn't Tehran or 1960's Moscow....this is the UK and our oh so special bestest mate, the US......seems very messed up to me, why should SHE get immunity from wrong-doing?

[PhilV]

All a horrible situation, they have lost their child and the woman is pretty much just hiding behind diplomatic immunity, only coming out with a statement when pushed with the 'revoking' of the immunity. I hope the parents and their adviser keep up the media pressure to get some justice as it must be a horrifying situation for them.

Is this true though?


I have read online that she never actually had immunity to begin with... the story has filtered down to her husband being a "communications specialist" aka he is/was a spy over here and it was their people who told her to bail - she stayed behind and cooperated with the police on first instance, then seemingly she was advised to GTFO and she did.

This seems more like them protecting an asset and by extent that assets family which is why they told them to get out of dodge.

Having said all that, a young man has lost his life and I am not absolving the woman, she killed him due to being negligent and driving on the wrong side of the road in a foreign country, she should absolutely face the law but I doubt the USA will play ball, they rarely do - remember when they said and drew up a plan to invade the Hague if their soldiers were trialed for war crimes in Afghanistan/Iraq... they don't want their people trialed even if they absolutely have committed a crime.

But this isn't Tehran or 1960's Moscow....this is the UK and our oh so special bestest mate, the US......seems very messed up to me, why should SHE get immunity from wrong-doing?

She shouldn't - but the fact is in this Brexit era the UK absolutely wants to be chums with the US in case of no deal and politics take precedence over an individuals life which is horrible but a fact with the people in power on either side of the pond, they don't care about the individual.

[Andy82lfc]

Unpalatable as it is here, across-the-board immunity is the right solution.  Could you imagine trying to operate an embassy in Tehran, or 1960s Moscow, if your guys were fair game for the local police.

Agree in the sense that immunity is there for very very important reasons, but also in the convention it's stated they must 'respect the laws', this obviously is just lip service as it pretty much counts for nothing clearly.   

Is this true though?


I have read online that she never actually had immunity to begin with... the story has filtered down to her husband being a "communications specialist" aka he is/was a spy over here and it was their people who told her to bail - she stayed behind and cooperated with the police on first instance, then seemingly she was advised to GTFO and she did.

What I read was that she did, but for some reason it was revoked or now doesn't apply, that's what the government came out with, it also seemed the US agreed. Which begs the question how on earth is she still protected??

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/13/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-driver-who-fled-uk-devastated-by-fatal-crash

She shouldn't - but the fact is in this Brexit era the UK absolutely wants to be chums with the US in case of no deal and politics take precedence over an individuals life which is horrible but a fact with the people in power on either side of the pond, they don't care about the individual.

This is probably one of the main reasons why. Unlike the case I mentioned above of the woman being killed by a Libyan, in which they threw them all out and advocated bombings because of it, we may need the US and is why we can't do shit. Which makes the whole thing stink even more.

 

[Circa1892]

Absolutely baffling his parents were basically allowed to walk into a media ambush with the US President, with no senior UK diplomats or politicians there to support them. Where was Dominic Raab. The whole situation is horrific for them, can only imagine how they felt when they were confronted by the US President acting as if he was fucking Cilla Black and he was introducing them to a long lost relative on Surprise Surprise.

[Machae]

So what crime is actually off limits when it comes to diplomatic immunity? seeing as you can literally murder someone and not be held liable

[Trada]

Absolutely baffling his parents were basically allowed to walk into a media ambush with the US President, with no senior UK diplomats or politicians there to support them. Where was Dominic Raab. The whole situation is horrific for them, can only imagine how they felt when they were confronted by the US President acting as if he was fucking Cilla Black and he was introducing them to a long lost relative on Surprise Surprise.

Skynews Saying that Trump just said he had told Johnson he was going to try to get them to met her when they were there.

If true he should had warned them.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Without reading up too much on this, my thinking from what I know is that she wouldn't really be punished if she did face the law given that it seems to have been a genuine mistake, and she definitely wouldn't be facing any jail time - unless something has gone on that we aren't aware of i.e drink, drugs, phone, insurance. Correct me if I am wrong?

If I am right, her doing a runner and refusing to come back, and the US Government supporting this stance, seems very unnecessary and inappropriate. Must make a devastating time for the family so, so much worse.

[killer-heels]

Trump described the meeting as beautiful but sad. There has never been anyone who speaks the way he does.

[Red Beret]

Without reading up too much on this, my thinking from what I know is that she wouldn't really be punished if she did face the law given that it seems to have been a genuine mistake, and she definitely wouldn't be facing any jail time - unless something has gone on that we aren't aware of i.e drink, drugs, phone, insurance. Correct me if I am wrong?

If I am right, her doing a runner and refusing to come back, and the US Government supporting this stance, seems very unnecessary and inappropriate. Must make a devastating time for the family so, so much worse.

I would say there was a case of driving without due care and attention, possibly refusing to stop at the scene of an accident?  Plus refusing to assist police with enquiries and absconding when under suspicion?  Did she leave the country after being named or before?

If she had nothing to hide she'd have no problem talking to the police so it's a pretty messed up situation.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

I would say there was a case of driving without due care and attention, possibly refusing to stop at the scene of an accident?  Plus refusing to assist police with enquiries and absconding when under suspicion?  Did she leave the country after being named or before?

If she had nothing to hide she'd have no problem talking to the police so it's a pretty messed up situation.

I didn't realise she didn't stop at the scene. I guess that just adds weight that there was/is something to hide!

[Red Beret]

I didn't realise she didn't stop at the scene. I guess that just adds weight that there was/is something to hide!

I have no idea if she stopped or not.  I'm just speculating about what laws may have been broken.  She may well have stopped and given her details, which is why the police knew who they wanted to speak to.

I think there's also a failure to render assistance law, which applies regardless of whether you were in the accident or not? 

[rodderzzz]

She did stop, police spoke to her at the scene, she actually spoke to Harry himself according to multiple reports before flagging another vehicle to call police while she comforted her own kids.

[Andy82lfc]

I have no idea if she stopped or not.  I'm just speculating about what laws may have been broken.  She may well have stopped and given her details, which is why the police knew who they wanted to speak to.

I think there's also a failure to render assistance law, which applies regardless of whether you were in the accident or not?

From what I read she 'admitted fault at the scene', so I am guessing she did stop. She also cooperated with police and told them she would not be fleeing the country. The police then applied to the government/US for a waiver of the womans Immunity, this was declined at the same time the US informed she had left the country. So the US basically found out, stalled the police while chucking her on a plane then when she left they informed the police they would not waive the immunity and she was gone.

Now the immunity has been quashed it is basically down to the US to hand her over, but not much chance of that is there and not much little UK can do about it.

Just don't know how that woman can sleep at night knowing how she has left the family after killing their child. Disgusting really.

[Red Beret]

Thanks for clarifying.

Is it possible that the US removed her against her will?  Trump (or a Trump associate) could well have seen this as a bad news story that could reflect badly on them and so pressured her into leaving so they could try and quash the story?

Otherwise yeah, it is extremely nefarious.

[Andy82lfc]

Thanks for clarifying.

Is it possible that the US removed her against her will?  Trump (or a Trump associate) could well have seen this as a bad news story that could reflect badly on them and so pressured her into leaving so they could try and quash the story?

Otherwise yeah, it is extremely nefarious.

Anything is possible I suppose, only they will know. Although not sure I could see Trump taking a possible straightforward situation, then making a decision to turn it into such a catastrophic mess with it blowing up in his face. Doesn't sound like his style. 

[Red Beret]

Anything is possible I suppose, only they will know. Although not sure I could see Trump taking a possible straightforward situation, then making a decision to turn it into such a catastrophic mess with it blowing up in his face. Doesn't sound like his style.

Absolutely.  He's far too much of a genius.

[Big Red Richie]

If she doesn't have diplomatic immunity, or it's been waived, then surely the UK can ask for extradition?

Failing that, put out an international warrant, and extradition request, and any time in the future she leaves U.S. soil, to a country we have extradition protocols with, have her arrested.


Or am I being naïve?

[Red Beret]

If she doesn't have diplomatic immunity, or it's been waived, then surely the UK can ask for extradition?

Failing that, put out an international warrant, and extradition request, and any time in the future she leaves U.S. soil, to a country we have extradition protocols with, have her arrested.


Or am I being naïve?

Well I doubt the US will honour any extradition request.  I see no immediate barrier to the latter though; however that would be something of an escalation.

[killer-heels]

If she doesn't have diplomatic immunity, or it's been waived, then surely the UK can ask for extradition?

Failing that, put out an international warrant, and extradition request, and any time in the future she leaves U.S. soil, to a country we have extradition protocols with, have her arrested.


Or am I being naïve?

Absolutely zero chance of that happening. Puts us in conflict with the Yanks.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

Without reading up too much on this, my thinking from what I know is that she wouldn't really be punished if she did face the law given that it seems to have been a genuine mistake, and she definitely wouldn't be facing any jail time - unless something has gone on that we aren't aware of i.e drink, drugs, phone, insurance. Correct me if I am wrong?

If I am right, her doing a runner and refusing to come back, and the US Government supporting this stance, seems very unnecessary and inappropriate. Must make a devastating time for the family so, so much worse.

I'd say based on what we know you are not far from the truth.

Sentencing guidelines for causing death by careless driving are here

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/

We don't know the full details but I'd guess you have three potential situations in escalating severity (assuming the main cause was her getting the traffic directions confused):

She looked left, saw nothing coming and turned right straight into his path (although for me this would still be careless driving if you turned into the correct lane without checking no-one was overtaking from the other direction)

She looked right (into the traffic that she thought was travelling 'with her') then looked left down the wrong lane (the near one) and missed him coming in the far  lane before turning left, across the centre line, into his path.

She not only turned into the wrong lane but carried on in that lane and then hit him head on.

I'd guess that assuming the court accepted her evidence re. getting the direction of travel confused (which I guess would depend on her experience driving in the UK) it would only be the last one that attracted a custodial sentence. 

[Kenny's Jacket]

Without reading up too much on this, my thinking from what I know is that she wouldn't really be punished if she did face the law given that it seems to have been a genuine mistake,

Driving on the wrong side of the road, how is that not death by gross negligence?

Speaking of negligent, how did the shit UK government allow this awful family to leave in the first place?

American is a truly awful country and were about to become an even bigger bitch to them than ever.  Depressing 

[AndyInVA]

It’s a pretty awful story. She sounds like a normal mum who made a stupid mistake with terrible consequences. Something stupid while she wasn’t thinking or distracted by her kids. It seems Harry Dunn had been riding for years and was in no way to blame. The BBC did a great podcast on this. It makes sense that diplomatic immunity extends to family for their protection. The American did stop for the Police, did give her details, and did say she would not leave the country. The facts of the case are not disputed by anyone. She isn’t saying she didn’t do it. She just doesn’t want to go to jail.

It seems clear that when she woke up the next day and talked to the US military lawyer and the consequences she may face for death with negligence. She realized she had a get out of jail card and she played. Maybe her husband or parents talked her into it. Either way, I don’t know how she sleeps either.

The base has no runway and is purely a listening aerial base. It’s clear her husband has high level clearance and is part of the electronic listening spy world.

I can’t imagine how the family feels. They will probably never get true justice if the same action had been performed by someone else.

[Kenny's Jacket]

It’s a pretty awful story. She sounds like a normal mum who made a stupid mistake with terrible consequences. Something stupid while she wasn’t thinking or distracted by her kids. It seems Harry Dunn had been riding for years and was in no way to blame. The BBC did a great podcast on this. It makes sense that diplomatic immunity extends to family for their protection. The American did stop for the Police, did give her details, and did say she would not leave the country. The facts of the case are not disputed by anyone. She isn’t saying she didn’t do it. She just doesn’t want to go to jail.

It seems clear that when she woke up the next day and talked to the US military lawyer and the consequences she may face for death with negligence. She realized she had a get out of jail card and she played. Maybe her husband or parents talked her into it. Either way, I don’t know how she sleeps either.

The base has no runway and is purely a listening aerial base. It’s clear her husband has high level clearance and is part of the electronic listening spy world.

I can’t imagine how the family feels. They will probably never get true justice if the same action had been performed by someone else.

So she's a liar and a killer.

Nobody wants to go to jail. She has killed someone through gross negligence and is getting off scot free. Its disgusting, Id hate to be Harrys parents knowing someone has killed your child and your own inept government have helped the killer escape justice.

[Andy82lfc]

It’s a pretty awful story. She sounds like a normal mum who made a stupid mistake with terrible consequences. Something stupid while she wasn’t thinking or distracted by her kids. It seems Harry Dunn had been riding for years and was in no way to blame. The BBC did a great podcast on this. It makes sense that diplomatic immunity extends to family for their protection. The American did stop for the Police, did give her details, and did say she would not leave the country. The facts of the case are not disputed by anyone. She isn’t saying she didn’t do it. She just doesn’t want to go to jail.

It seems clear that when she woke up the next day and talked to the US military lawyer and the consequences she may face for death with negligence. She realized she had a get out of jail card and she played. Maybe her husband or parents talked her into it. Either way, I don’t know how she sleeps either.

The base has no runway and is purely a listening aerial base. It’s clear her husband has high level clearance and is part of the electronic listening spy world.

I can’t imagine how the family feels. They will probably never get true justice if the same action had been performed by someone else.

I think at this stage Harry Dunn's mother is playing it well and needs to keep it in the public eye somehow. She is also saying the right things now like asking the US woman to set an example for her kids and do the right thing etc, basically saying forget the immunity, forget about what you can and can't do with ignoring the law, what is the right thing to do. I think they are also making a good decision not to meet her. She is clearly wanting to meet and also wanted the White house ambush meeting, so maybe there is a part of her conscience (and there should be!) that wants closure/movement as it's eating her up a bit. I think her meeting then apologising, explaining etc would solve a lot of that and she certainly doesn't deserve that at all.

I think they are right too, it shouldn't be about the law at this point, but about doing the right thing, it's not just about abiding to laws it's about giving a grieving family closure. She didn't accidentally smash up property, or set fire to an empty building or accidentally commit some kind of harmless fraud, in which case most would probably say, you know what, no harm, fuck it. She has taken a life, someone's child, you can't just run away from that. I think eventually unless she is dead inside she will either come back or offer an alternative, surely you can't just live with doing that.

[Kekule]

Isn't diplomatic immunity supposed to just be immunity from prosecution for any law of the host country you may have had to transgress whilst carrying out your role?

It's not actually meant to apply to anything you might have done that isn't directly part of your job, or reckless behaviour, is it?  The idea the current lot in the US have of diplomatic immunity appears to come straight out of Hollywood.

Any UK government with a backbone would be making that point.  The current US administration still wouldn't do anything about it like, but at least the family would feel like they're being supported.

[Kenny's Jacket]

Isn't diplomatic immunity supposed to just be immunity from prosecution for any law of the host country you may have had to transgress whilst carrying o
out your role?

It's not actually meant to apply to anything you might have done that isn't directly part of your job, or reckless behaviour, is it?  The idea the current lot in the US have of diplomatic immunity appears to come straight out of Hollywood.

Any UK government with a backbone would be making that point.  The current US administration still wouldn't do anything about it like, but at least the family would feel like they're being supported.

How the fuck was she allowed to leave in the first place. Completely inept from the UK Government

Good point on the immunity. If it makes you immune from killing innocent people then it makes a mockery of the system. They sound like an awful family.

[Kenny's Jacket]

I think at this stage Harry Dunn's mother is playing it well and needs to keep it in the public eye somehow. She is also saying the right things now like asking the US woman to set an example for her kids and do the right thing etc, basically saying forget the immunity, forget about what you can and can't do with ignoring the law, what is the right thing to do. I think they are also making a good decision not to meet her. She is clearly wanting to meet and also wanted the White house ambush meeting, so maybe there is a part of her conscience (and there should be!) that wants closure/movement as it's eating her up a bit. I think her meeting then apologising, explaining etc would solve a lot of that and she certainly doesn't deserve that at all.

I think they are right too, it shouldn't be about the law at this point, but about doing the right thing, it's not just about abiding to laws it's about giving a grieving family closure. She didn't accidentally smash up property, or set fire to an empty building or accidentally commit some kind of harmless fraud, in which case most would probably say, you know what, no harm, fuck it. She has taken a life, someone's child, you can't just run away from that. I think eventually unless she is dead inside she will either come back or offer an alternative, surely you can't just live with doing that.

If its not about the law, then what is it about?

[Iska]

Isn't diplomatic immunity supposed to just be immunity from prosecution for any law of the host country you may have had to transgress whilst carrying out your role?

It's not actually meant to apply to anything you might have done that isn't directly part of your job, or reckless behaviour, is it?  The idea the current lot in the US have of diplomatic immunity appears to come straight out of Hollywood.

Any UK government with a backbone would be making that point.  The current US administration still wouldn't do anything about it like, but at least the family would feel like they're being supported.

No.  It’s absolute immunity.  You might not like it but the law is clear.  From the Vienna Convention:

Article 31
1.A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State ...

Article 32
1.The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents and of persons enjoying immunity under article 37 may be waived by the sending State.
2.Waiver must always be express ...

[Machae]

No.  It’s absolute immunity.  You might not like it but the law is clear.  From the Vienna Convention:

Whilst I understand diplomatic immunity for her husband, does it still apply to the partner though?

[Kekule]

No.  It’s absolute immunity.  You might not like it but the law is clear.  From the Vienna Convention:

Ok, cheers for clearing that up. I didn't realise.  Seems a touch over the top, but people with better understanding of these things than me drew it up, so there must be reasons for it.

[Iska]

Whilst I understand diplomatic immunity for her husband, does it still apply to the partner though?

Yes, “members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household” have the same immunity under Art.37(1).

Seems a touch over the top

It seems that way when this is the case you have in mind, but the basic point is if it didn’t exist there wouldn’t be any diplomats, because they’d forever be getting arrested on trumped-up accusations whenever an unscrupulous host state wanted to make a point. 

[Buck Pete]

[Andy82lfc]

If its not about the law, then what is it about?

It is yeah, but was just saying the family are going with the fact that basically the UK and the law is doing nothing at this point, so his mother is trying to play on the moral side of it to the woman, which is basically the only play she has and it's a good move as clearly the UK are doing fuck all and don't seem they will be any time soon.

My other side of that point is that in these circumstances is should not be about, oh I have a get out of jail card so I can do whatever I want, there should be a moral obligation besides the law that makes a person say, you know what I fucked up and I should take myslef back to the UK as I killed someones child, perfect world an all that...