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

I could direct you to all the posts that have covered that point, but simply put, diplomatic privilege is granted by the Receiving State (the UK) and extends from the diplomatic officer to his or her family and accompanying servants. This allows diplomats all over the world - sometimes in quite hostile environments - to go about their business knowing that their accompanying families are safe. Diplomatic immunity (per se) is only valid for the duration of their posting and only in the country of accreditation.
You don't need to direct me anywhere as I'm not in disagreement with you.

The point i was trying to make is that her job may involve activities that, if discovered, could prove highly embarrassing to the UK government. With Diplomatic Immunity, publicity could be avoided either by preventing a court appearance or by declaration of persona non grata and a quick flight home.

The plan breaks down when the "diplomat" flees before being declared PNG as there's no element of punishment to appease the public.
 
You don't need to direct me anywhere as I'm not in disagreement with you.

The point i was trying to make is that her job may involve activities that, if discovered, could prove highly embarrassing to the UK government. With Diplomatic Immunity, publicity could be avoided either by preventing a court appearance or by declaration of persona non grata and a quick flight home.

The plan breaks down when the "diplomat" flees before being declared PNG as there's no element of punishment to appease the public.
She doesn't need to have been declared PNGd.

The US withdrew her, which is SOP for most countries, and in accordance with the VCDR. Her activities are immaterial. If you read the Court judgement, HMG is fully aware of the activities of State Department employees at Croughton. She might have been undeclared, but that is highly unlikely. After all, she had been visiting the BX just prior to the accident, with one of her children in the car.

The problems is that people see conspiracy and intrigue in what was a dreadful accident. The difference is that the accused is not bound by UK law.
 
She doesn't need to have been declared PNGd.

The US withdrew her, which is SOP for most countries, and in accordance with the VCDR. Her activities are immaterial. If you read the Court judgement, HMG is fully aware of the activities of State Department employees at Croughton. She might have been undeclared, but that is highly unlikely. After all, she had been visiting the BX just prior to the accident, with one of her children in the car.

The problems is that people see conspiracy and intrigue in what was a dreadful accident. The difference is that the accused is not bound by UK law.
You're still not getting my drift.

Having Immunity, there is only one punishment that can be meted, being declared PNG. Harry's parents have been denied that satisfaction. The public have been denied the opportunity to shout "Good riddance". By doing a moonlight flit, she has escaped scot free.*

The only punishment resulting from having killed Harry is that of having to select the destination carefully if she goes on a foreign holiday. The US has denied extradition, other countries may not.

*Unless Harry's parents begin a civil case in the US - but that's a process for compensation, not justice. OK for replacing a damaged vehicle but smacks of bargaining for blood money and devaluing a life.
 
Having Immunity, there is only one punishment that can be meted, being declared PNG
IF that is the case, THEN who has that authority, AND under what circumstances might they legitimately do so?

We're all hacked off at how this played out, but you're picking at a scab that belongs to someone else, and no amount of "what if" or "yeah but" is going to change the way the inter-state machinery of diplomacy functions.
 
IF that is the case, THEN who has that authority, AND under what circumstances might they legitimately do so?

We're all hacked off at how this played out, but you're picking at a scab that belongs to someone else, and no amount of "what if" or "yeah but" is going to change the way the inter-state machinery of diplomacy functions.
Nobody has that authority now, the opportunity was lost when she left. Whose fault was that? Some would argue the British government - who would doubtless counter that Immunity was in the process of being verified at the time of her departure. Others would argue that the US government had a hand by not indicating her imminent departure.
 
Nobody has that authority now, the opportunity was lost when she left. Whose fault was that? Some would argue the British government - who would doubtless counter that Immunity was in the process of being verified at the time of her departure. Others would argue that the US government had a hand by not indicating her imminent departure.
It's not gonna get better, son, if you keep picking at the scab.

It's done.

It's desperately sad, and hugely disappointing.

But it is done, and there's no more to be gained by gnawing at the leftovers, not even for the family.

Time to close the thread, IMHO.
 
Nobody has that authority now, the opportunity was lost when she left. Whose fault was that? Some would argue the British government - who would doubtless counter that Immunity was in the process of being verified at the time of her departure. Others would argue that the US government had a hand by not indicating her imminent departure.
What you opine is not backed up in last week's High Court Judgement.

The sequence of events is covered in exquisite detail in the High Court findings. It was established very early on that she had both immunity and inviobility (even though because of a quirk emerging from the 1995 Exchange of Letters, if her husband had been driving he could have been prosecuted in the UK with US 'pre waiver'). The Northants Police were also appraised fairly early on that she had immunity. The US Embassy advised the FCO that Mrs Sakoolas would be leaving and the FCO urged that she should stay, but the US stuck to the VCDR and she subsequently left on a USAF flight from Mildenhall - which is common practice for State Department and DOD personnel and families.

The High Court also found both the FCO and the Northants Police acted properly throughout, and the Dunne's claims had no legal merit.
 
What you opine is not backed up in last week's High Coury Judgement.

The sequence of events is covered in exquisite detail in the High Court findings. It was established very early on that she had both immunity and inviobility (even though because of a quirk emerging from the 1995 Exchange of Letters, if her husband had been driving he could have been prosecuted in the UK with US 'pre waiver'). The Northants Police were also appraised fairly early on that she had immunity. The US Embassy advised the FCO that Mrs Sakoolas would be leaving and the FCO urged that she should stay, but they stuck to the VCDR and she subsequently left on a USAF flight from Mildenhall.

The High Court found both the FCO and the Northants Police acted properly throughout, and the Dunne's claims had no legal merit.
See my previous post.
 
See my previous post.
I agree. I have explained in detail how the VCDR works numerous times; I've provided a detailed account of the Court Findings and have outlined the sequence of events several times. I can't be arrsed to repeat myself again and again, apart from saying the US Embassy lacked decency in their handling of this tragic incident.
 
Time to close the thread, IMHO.
Not yet. Things went wrong. The question remains of how to prevent a recurrence.

For example, should non-diplomats be granted DI? Should family members be granted DI? Should provisions be made to try cases abroad? Should foreign intelligence services be allowed to operate outside their own country? Should people with DI be required to attend court to determine whether or not they are guilty, even if punishment isn't an option?
 
the US Embassy lacked decency in their handling of this tragic incident.
Again - a-fvcking-men to that.

Which is not a failing unique to the incumbent administration (if, indeed, it qualifies for that label).

Look to the dominant US cultural values to understand how this happens.

And be afraid. Seriously. Even under Obama, the USA was/is an imperial power.

I'm just glad that Trump never quite got the hang of that :-D
 
Not yet. Things went wrong. The question remains of how to prevent a recurrence.

For example, should non-diplomats be granted DI? Should family members be granted DI? Should provisions be made to try cases abroad? Should foreign intelligence services be allowed to operate outside their own country? Should people with DI be required to attend court to determine whether or not they are guilty, even if punishment isn't an option?
#2626 refers.
 
You're still not getting my drift.

Having Immunity, there is only one punishment that can be meted, being declared PNG. Harry's parents have been denied that satisfaction. The public have been denied the opportunity to shout "Good riddance". By doing a moonlight flit, she has escaped scot free.*

The only punishment resulting from having killed Harry is that of having to select the destination carefully if she goes on a foreign holiday. The US has denied extradition, other countries may not.

*Unless Harry's parents begin a civil case in the US - but that's a process for compensation, not justice. OK for replacing a damaged vehicle but smacks of bargaining for blood money and devaluing a life.

You are dreaming if you imagine she will ever be permitted back into this nation. There's no way she will be coming back for trial, and there's no way the government will allow her to embarrass them by coming back without one.
 
You are dreaming if you imagine she will ever be permitted back into this nation. There's no way she will be coming back for trial, and there's no way the government will allow her to embarrass them by coming back without one.
Again: see my #2626, and close the thread.

There's no discussion to be had.

Grumbling - well, that's different and pointless.
 
You are dreaming if you imagine she will ever be permitted back into this nation. There's no way she will be coming back for trial, and there's no way the government will allow her to embarrass them by coming back without one.
What makes you think that I imagined that? The only way I can see her coming back will be if she is extradited from a third country - and I doubt that'll happen.
 
The High Court gave given permission for the family to appeal

Now that's odd. Last week the High Court dismissed their automatic right to appeal as their claims were comprehensively dismissed and in doing so, they have to provide fresh evidence to support their claims otherwise the Appellant court will simply hear the same, tired arguments. Notwithstanding that whatever the outcome, it will not change the price of fish or un-dead poor Harry.
 

woger wabbit

War Hero
Wrong.

If that was to happen (and I believe it has) the Ambassador would demarche the Department of State in no uncertain terms and share this information with like-minded diplomatic missions in DC. Our Foreign Secretary would also call in the US Ambassador into King Charles Street for a little chat, sans café. Meanwhile Wherethef&cksville County Police Department would also be advised by Federal Authorities in no uncertain terms to release the diplomat forthwith. The law enforcers detaining a diplomat would also be breaking Federal law, as the inviobility and immunity of diplomats and their families under the protection of the VCDR is embodied within Receiving State legislation.

Additionally, the diplomatic identity cards issued by the Receiving State normally have text to the effect of 'the holder of this card is afforded Diplomatic Privilege by the Government of the Ruritania and shall not be hindered, arrested nor detained...'

ETA @Steamboat has helpfully posted Wyoming LE procedures. There is some wiggle room for LE to verify the identity cards etc, but the principles outline above still apply. It becomes problematical if they say, stopped a drunk driver...he or she can't be released because of the threat to others they pose. Decent diplomats have a driver...
I accept that my post was off the beam I didn't realise the serious implications of detaining diplomats. Thanks for the information.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top