Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Harry Dunn killed by US diplomat's wife

Not quite, the High Court ruled she had diplomatic imunity at the time she fled the UK. She did not have diplomatic imunity at the time of the Harry Dunn incident. Many UK government departments moved heaven and earth to get her out as soon as possible. The sequence of events after the incident is very interesting as he was on her way to the airport with a freshly isdue diplomatic passport BEFORE the police investigation had even begun. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and even more we will never hear about.
"But Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini concluded "that Mrs Sacoolas enjoyed immunity from UK criminal jurisdiction at the time of Harry's death""
 
Not quite, the High Court ruled she had diplomatic imunity at the time she fled the UK. She did not have diplomatic imunity at the time of the Harry Dunn incident. Many UK government departments moved heaven and earth to get her out as soon as possible. The sequence of events after the incident is very interesting as he was on her way to the airport with a freshly isdue diplomatic passport BEFORE the police investigation had even begun. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and even more we will never hear about.

the U.K. wouldn't even have had a walk on part.
She’d have left the de facto US base, in a US registered car, and travelled out of the U.K. on a US registered plane from a US base.
she could have been driven out of the base with a BFO ‘I’m a leaving’ banner and there was nothing going to stop her - certainly not Northamptonshire plod
 
the U.K. wouldn't even have had a walk on part.
She’d have left the de facto US base, in a US registered car, and travelled out of the U.K. on a US registered plane from a US base.
she could have been driven out of the base with a BFO ‘I’m a leaving’ banner and there was nothing going to stop her - certainly not Northamptonshire plod

umm and her hubby and kids , dont forget they had to pack up and leave too.
Not quite, the High Court ruled she had diplomatic imunity at the time she fled the UK. She did not have diplomatic imunity at the time of the Harry Dunn incident. Many UK government departments moved heaven and earth to get her out as soon as possible. The sequence of events after the incident is very interesting as he was on her way to the airport with a freshly isdue diplomatic passport BEFORE the police investigation had even begun. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and even more we will never hear about.

Out of interest would you say the actual accident probably more than it meets the eye (forget the aftermath).

cheers
 
Not quite, the High Court ruled she had diplomatic imunity at the time she fled the UK. She did not have diplomatic imunity at the time of the Harry Dunn incident. [Wrong, she did.] Many UK government departments moved heaven and earth to get her out as soon as possible [How, which departments were these? The FCO protested most vigorously about the US intention to remove her]. The sequence of events after the incident is very interesting as he was on her way to the airport with a freshly isdue diplomatic passport BEFORE the police investigation had even begun. [Not so; the police investigation started on the day of the accident. Her diplomatic passport would have been issued by the Consular Section of the US Embassy - nothing to do with FCO or HMG, and would not have prevented her from leaving; moreover her passport is likely to have been issued only two months before]. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and even more we will never hear about. [No there isn't. The only information that has been redacted was the employing agency of staff/employees at Croughton, and the case does not hinge on that.

Re-read the full hearing.

I have just spent a fascinating two hours reading through the case. Each of the grounds proposed by the Claimants were demolished, and both SofS and the FCO acted in good faith.

Furthermore, leave to appeal was considers and dismissed

Interesting takeaways:

"The threat to the efficient performance of diplomatic functions arises at least as much from the risk of trumped up or baseless allegations and unsatisfactory tribunals as from justified ones subject to objective forensic appraisal. It may fairly be said that from the United Kingdom's point of view, a significant purpose of conferring diplomatic immunity of foreign diplomatic personnel in Britain is to ensure that British diplomatic personnel enjoy corresponding immunities elsewhere."​
"Every state party to the Convention is both a sending and receiving state. The efficacy of the Convention depends, even more than most treaties do, on its reciprocal operation. Article 47.2 of the Convention authorises any receiving state to restrict the application of a provision to the diplomatic agents of a sending state if that state gives a restrictive application of that provision as applied to the receiving state's own mission. In some jurisdictions, such as the United States, the recognition of diplomatic immunities is dependent as a matter of national law on their reciprocity…"[ie reciprocity of treatment]​
VCDR 1961 Article 29 provides:​
"The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity."​
Immunity from jurisdiction (including criminal jurisdiction) may be waived only by the sending State under Article 32 VCDR.​
It only became clear to us during the course of the hearing that the Claimants' representatives accepted that (irrespective of the position of Mrs Sacoolas in relation to immunity) Mrs Sacoolas enjoyed inviolability. Certain of their arguments in the pleadings had proceeded however on the basis that she could have been arrested, detained and charged by the police. ...It is now common ground that Mrs Sacoolas could not have been arrested and detained by the police before she left for the US on 15 September 2019.​
On Friday 13 September 2019, two Protocol Directorate officials met with officials from the US Embassy, who handed over their own Diplomatic Note which stated that the US declined to waive the immunities of Mrs Sacoolas or her child. At the meeting, the Protocol Directorate officials were informed that the Sacoolas family would be leaving the UK the next day (a Saturday), unless the UK had strong objections. The Protocol Directorate officials objected to the proposed departure in strong terms, and repeatedly emphasised that the FCO wanted the Sacoolas family to cooperate with the UK authorities.
In our judgment, Mrs Sacoolas had immunity at the time of Harry's death.
Findings:
First, we reject the Claimants' submission that the FCO "granted" a "conditional" form of immunity to the family
Creative though they are, the Claimants' arguments under Ground 1 ultimately amount to playing with language in order to address the weakness in the case arising from the lack of an express waiver.
...the Claimants contend that it was unlawful for the FCO to "obstruct a criminal investigation" by NP, and/or to confirm to and/or advise NP that Mrs Sacoolas and her husband had diplomatic immunity, alternatively that it was an "abuse of power" for the FCO to have done anything other than inform the US that if its assertion of immunity was maintained that would have to be tested in the Courts.
Ground 2 of the Claimants' case rests on the foundation that, but for the conduct of the FCO, Mrs Sacoolas "would have been arrested and charged" with causing death by dangerous driving, and "any claim to immunity would have been decided…by her court of trial". That is an unsound foundation:​
(a) Having now reviewed all the relevant material, NP agree with the FCO's conclusion that Mrs Sacoolas enjoyed diplomatic immunity. There is no reason to think that NP would have concluded otherwise had the FCO not acted in the ways that the Claimants contend to be unlawful. So, even if there was some form of legal duty to disclose "grounds for investigation of the immunity issue" (as it was put on behalf of the Claimants), such disclosure would not have led to any different result.​
(b) In any event, whether or not Mrs Sacoolas had immunity from criminal jurisdiction, it is now common ground that she enjoyed inviolability of the person by operation of the VCDR and NP could not lawfully have arrested her or otherwise prevented her from leaving the UK. The suggestion made in oral submissions on behalf of the Claimants that if NP had charged Mrs Sacoolas she would not have left the UK or delayed departure is purely speculative​
  1. Even taking these factual allegations made by the Claimants at their highest, we do not consider they raise an arguable claim of unlawfulness in public law. The FCO officials at all times acted in good faith (as is now accepted); did not deliberately obstruct the NP investigation (as is also now accepted); and, on the contrary, sought to assist rather than obstruct NP in their investigation, including by seeking a waiver of Mrs Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity and objecting in strong terms when the US stated its intention to withdraw her from the UK
  2. At their highest, the substance of the Claimants' allegations as now advanced may be that the FCO did not take certain actions which the Claimants suggest would have assisted NP in their investigation. In our judgment, that does not provide the basis for a finding of public law unlawfulness. It is in any event the duty of the police, not the FCO, to investigate possible criminal offences.
As to the complaint that the FCO did not immediately notify NP on Friday 13 September 2019 that the US Embassy intended to withdraw the Sacoolas family from the UK, the evidence is that the meeting at which the US Embassy informed the FCO of its intentions ended late in the afternoon on 13 September 2019, after which time it was necessary for FCO officials to discuss next steps. The FCO notified NP on Monday 16 September 2019, shortly after the FCO was notified by the US Embassy that the Sacoolas family had left the UK. FCO officials were aware that, even if NP had been informed of the US Embassy's intentions on Friday 13 September 2019, they would not have been able to do anything to prevent the Sacoolas family from departing, given that each member of the family enjoyed inviolability of the person and could not lawfully have been arrested.
 
Not quite, the High Court ruled she had diplomatic imunity at the time she fled the UK. She did not have diplomatic imunity at the time of the Harry Dunn incident. Many UK government departments moved heaven and earth to get her out as soon as possible. The sequence of events after the incident is very interesting as he was on her way to the airport with a freshly isdue diplomatic passport BEFORE the police investigation had even begun. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye and even more we will never hear about.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
 
And Mrs Sacoolas could arrive on a US flight into Heathrow and waved straight through after this judgement.
As a holder of immunity as a dependant her immunity expired when she left the country so If she came back (without "new" dip immunity) the police could nick her.

That why extradition proceedings could start. That the US went for an "unconventional" interpretation of the Vienna Convenrion to deny the request is just another demonstration of @Filthy_contract 's earlier observation of their actions "lacking decency"
 
As a holder of immunity as a dependant her immunity expired when she left the country so If she came back (without "new" dip immunity) the police could nick her.

That why extradition proceedings could start. That the US went for an "unconventional" interpretation of the Vienna Convenrion to deny the request is just another demonstration of @Filthy_contract 's earlier observation of their actions "lacking decency"
It becomes complex when a High Court has ruled that she had immunity and was 'inviolate' (ie can't be detained, impeded or arrested) at the time of the incident. We then stray into the delicate legal area of longevity of immunity, as in the Pinochet case.

The US rigorously interpreted the VCDR (as did the UK) and it's interesting to read the preamble to yesterday's judgement. The ILC, who drafted the initial draft of VCDR, spent years working with States Party to agree pretty much every word of the Treaty, which went through numerous drafts, hence the comment from the Judge, to the effect, there is no slack in the VCDR and no wiggle-room.

The Judge politely (and deliciously) slaps down the Claimants in this case as their claims had no merit. The egregious claims that some how HMG colluded with the US Embassy to spirit the woman from the country and at the same time frustrate the NP investigation were both without basis in fact. Indeed, as pointed out, iaw VCDR, removing a person from the country is the normal course of action (as remaining in-country is unconscionable to the Receiving State), unless the Sending State agrees to waiver immunity, and act with decency.

However, the US did not want to set a precedent and had hoped it would have kept RAF Croughton and its occupants in the shade. All they have done has been to highlight USG activities in the UK (and reveal the distinct HMG uneasiness in this presence). There is absolutely no evidence or inference that Mrs Sakoolas was nothing more that a dutiful wife who followed her husband on a 'diplomatic' posting. Indeed, his position is described, even though the agency he worked for at Croughton is redacted.

But this won't stop the conspiraloons concocting increasingly fanciful explanations about a tragic accident.
 
wibble wibble. That could only be a facetious rumour
There are reports of her now working at Langley
Which of course could be pure rumour

Also, other than ‘running a section’ she could now be a spent asset and useless overseas due to the backfire of publicity which resulted from running away and becoming world news rather than a relatively quiet prosecution of a foreign worker making the mistake of driving on the wrong side at the wrong time
 

Latest Threads

Top