Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I ask because, the USAF has served the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in England with a certificate under the 1952 Visiting Forces Act, which asserts jurisdiction when an incident happens while a foreign service member is in the course of, or on, duty.
The USAF is trying to claim that Mikayla Hayes who was driving home in her red Honda Accord car when she hit the motorcyclist was on duty, and therefore US Military Courts have jurisdiction.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is disputing this and the crash occurred some twelve and a half miles away from the US base at Lakenheath.
It also should be noted Harry Dunn case is yet to be resolved after three years, another motorcyclist has died, sue to the careless driving, however the US got out of that one by claiming immunity.
The issue, in this case, is clearly whether the defendant was on duty or off duty at the time of the incident. That is above the pay grade of everyone here and will be worked out between our respective governments.
The damage caused was to a person or property of a British subject, and there may well have been civilian witnesses, as set out in the British 1952 Visiting Forces Act.
British prosecutors are disputing that this woman was on duty and are refusing to waive jurisdiction.
The British courts may have to determine jurisdiction however there is no precedence in relation to Americans leaving a base to go home being still on duty.
It's likely the woman in question may get a lesser sentence in the British criminal courts than the US Service court.
I am however surprised the US has tried to use the Visiting Forces Act to establish US Jurisdiction over than of British Jurisdiction, as road upkeep and policing is a British matter and more imprtantly the accident involved a British Citizen who was killed, as well as British Property (the motorbike and any other damage to the area).
I therefore think British jurisdiction trumps that of US jurisdiction and the Crown Prosecution Service have stated as much, and I can't see the British Courts and authorities waiving jurisdiction in this case.
Quote:
Examples of cases where the United Kingdom would not usually waive jurisdiction in favour of the service court include:
* Damage has been caused to the person or property of a United Kingdom subject;
* There are a number of civilian witnesses;
* A child is a victim or an important witness.
* There is a possibility of a special penalty being imposed by United Kingdom Law (e.g. disqualification from driving, restraining order).
Examples of cases where jurisdiction is normally waived in favour of the service court include:
* Drug offences committed on the base;
* Minor drug offences committed off the base not involving any United Kingdom subject; and
* Cases where but for the involvement of service personnel a caution or diversion from prosecution would have been considered. In this case the appropriate service authority should be advised as to the likely disposal in the case of a United Kingdom subject.
The British courts may have to determine jurisdiction however there is no precedence in relation to Americans leaving a base to go home being still on duty.[/url][/b]
there was for reservists in the USA. not sure what the situation is now.
many years ago I knew a reservist whose auto accident injuries were not covered by the MIL because he had stopped on the way home to visit a friend. accident happened after the visit. he was not on long term orders.
he was informed that coverage would have extended all the way home IF there were no unnecessary stops.
What is the legal jurisdiction of the US Military Overseas
It is slightly different in each nation.
My last Duty Station was NSA Naples Italy. In Italy we have a S.O.F.A. [Status of Forces agreement] in place. During WWII when we conquered Italy, they surrendered to us and signed this S.O.F.A. which gives the US full military legal jurisdiction over all of Italy. I am not aware of any efforts by the US or by Italy to change that treaty.
I worked as US Military Police at NSA Naples. Our Navy has a base there that we captured from the NAZIs / Italians during WWII. When I was stationed there, the US Navy Police Department at NSA Naples had 200 MPs, and about 40 Italians that rode along with us to serve as translators in the field. NSA Naples is host to an assortment of NATO forces. Our Navy maintains a lot of leased housing in the area, to house NATO service members and their families. Our MPs patrol a jurisdictional area of approx. 500 square miles around the base. When I was stationed there the US had eight military bases scattered around Italy. Occasionally I have had to drive patrol cars all across Italy. There are also a bunch of Cemetaries scattered all over Italy, with sections for fallen US military, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. Whenever a Turk, Greek, or Brit gets in a traffic accident we get the call to respond to liaison with the local Italian Policia. When NATO housing is burglarized, we investigate, and for the most part the polizia liaisons with us nicely.
I agree that there may be different agreements, however I genuinely shocked that the US has tried to use the Visiting Forces Act 1952 in order to claim jurisdiction over an off base incident involving the death of a British civilian, as well as damage to British property, as it's quite clear that such incidents are the remit of both the British authorities and courts.
I really don't think the Crown Prosecution Service and Courts will allow this or waiver jurisdiction, and this may well cause a further significant rift, especially given the previous Harry Dunn case, and given that the law relies much more on judicial precedent in the UK.
To allow the US to have such jurisdiction would be to allow the erosion of our national sovereignty and rights as an independent nation.
The US oversteps the mark once again or do they really think they have jurisdiction, when involved in the death of a British citizen off base.
The death of a British citizen on a British road, policed by British police, is a British issue and should be dealt with by a British Court.
It clearly states in the 1952 Visiting Forces Act, that Where a serious offence against the person or property of a British subject has been committed, that Service Authority must be waived, and Matthew Day's family have a right to see the case dealt with in a British court, as does his young daughter who is missing daddy her daddy.
I can't believe the USAF is trying to pull this stunt, with Harry Dunn's death still fresh in our memories, and in terms of the accident it happened over 12 miles from the base, and even in a different county.
The death of a British Citizen on British soil, should not be dealt with by a foreign court, and as the Prosecutor rightly pointed out, it would be “very significant concession for any sovereign state to make to surrender jurisdiction”.
This would pave the way for the US to have jurisdiction in relation to serious offence against the person or property of a British subject, and would be a surrender of British national sovereignty and would also be questionable in relation to a number of the articles contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Hopefully common sense prevails, and the Judge sides with the Crown Prosecution Service, who have had to become involved in this disgusting jurisdiction claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belfast Telegraph
A US servicewoman was still on duty as she drove home from work at a Suffolk military base and allegedly killed a motorcyclist, her lawyer has told a court.
Father-of-one Matthew Day, 33, died of his injuries after a red Honda Accord car collided with the Yamaha motorbike he was riding in the village of Southery, near Downham Market, Norfolk, on August 26.
Airman first class Mikayla Hayes, 24, who is based at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, is charged with causing Mr Day’s death by careless driving.
Deputy senior district judge Tan Ikram is considering the issue of jurisdiction in the case, amid arguments over whether she should be dealt with by a UK court or US military court.
The US Air Force (USAF) has served the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) with a certificate under the 1952 Visiting Forces Act, which asserts jurisdiction.
It is understood that, if granted, Hayes – who is on bail – could face a US military court.
Prosecutor Rachel Scott described it as a “very significant concession for any sovereign state to make to surrender jurisdiction”.
Ms Scott argued that it is “contrary to common sense to suggest that she (Hayes) was on duty at the time of the accident”.
The prosecutor told Westminster Magistrates’ Court the collision occurred after the defendant had finished for the day and while she was driving home.
She said the servicewoman, sat in the dock wearing a black suit and grey shirt, was not on duty at the time, was not completing a work-related task and was “entirely in control of her time”.
Rejecting this suggestion, Andrew Cogan told the court his client had been in a military PT (physical training) uniform at the time and was still on duty and under orders as she travelled home.
He said her housing, despite the tenancy being in her and her husband’s name and being off the base, is “part and parcel” of the base.
He said: “She is required to live at a place other than RAF Lakenheath and travelling daily to her place of work is, in my submission, clearly indicative of it being a duty activity.”
Being dismissed from work that day “necessarily imports the fact that she was on duty”, he said, and therefore under orders to go home.
He acknowledged that it is not correct to say she is on duty at all times – giving the example of being on annual leave – but insisted she was on duty at the time of the crash.
Members of both the defendant’s and the deceased’s families were at court on Friday.
Judge Ikram said he will give a written ruling at a later date.
Complicating this case is the recent diplomats wife that also killed a scooter rider a few years ago. She fled the country and finally the case was resolved with a guilty plea, with sentencing later this month.
Complicating because it’s fresh in UK’s eyes that after charges, she may depart the country. In the diplomat wife’s case, she was driving on the wrong side of the road and fled the scene.
From the photos of the airman’s case, it appears to be an intersection.
It seems unlikely this situation hasn’t occurred in the past. Circumstances and perceptions change over time but this can’t be the first vehicle accident in UK by military. The jurisdiction shouldn’t change based on the charges either so again, what has changed?
Complicating this case is the recent diplomats wife that also killed a scooter rider a few years ago. She fled the country and finally the case was resolved with a guilty plea, with sentencing later this month.
Complicating because it’s fresh in UK’s eyes that after charges, she may depart the country. In the diplomat wife’s case, she was driving on the wrong side of the road and fled the scene.
From the photos of the airman’s case, it appears to be an intersection.
It seems unlikely this situation hasn’t occurred in the past. Circumstances and perceptions change over time but this can’t be the first vehicle accident in UK by military. The jurisdiction shouldn’t change based on the charges either so again, what has changed?
Over the years there have been numerous driving offences involving USAF personnel all of which have been dealt with by the British Courts, including one right outside the gates of one American base which killed British citizen David Rolfe, whilst there has been a lot of American fatalities, some of which involved drink driving or the use of drugs.
The Suffolk Coroner Dr Peter Dean even wrote to the USAF back in 2007, warning them of the potential for further accidents.
I am sorry but when US personnel are on or roads, it's our jurisdiction, and that applies to speeding, dangerous or reckless driving, drink/drug driving or incidents where British citizens are fatalities.
USAF personnel Katelynn Cox and Kierra Reed were both recently brought before Suffolk Magistrates in relation to drink driving, whilst Sgt Kenneth Powell was so drunk that his car was swerving all over the road, and he was also up before the magistrates.
As for the Harry Dunn case, the US had promised that it would waive any immunity off base, but this turned out to be untrue, and her husband wasn't a diplomat he was a telecoms engineer working at a rural US spy base, and she was a CIA agent.
Now it seems not content with disregarding waivers in relation to agreements and trying to hide behind legal loopholes, the US wants jurisdiction in relation to off base serious incidents involving the death of a British citizen on British soil, and contrary to previous cases which have always been dealt with by the British courts, whilst the 1952 Visiting Forces Act, clearly states that 'Where a serious offence against the person or property of a British subject has been committed, that Service Authority must be waived'.
The fact that a foreign court would even try to intervene in such circumstances., leads to questions about our entire national sovereignty and the 1952 Visiting Forces Act and other legislation, which must be amended if this is the case, and I would also suggest this breaches a number of articles in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights including Article 2 - Life - and the UK Governments obligation to conduct a full, open and transparent investigations in to the loss of a life due to actions by a public organisation.This should be public, independent and should involve members of the family of the victims.
I would suggest in relation to US bases in the UK that both the UK Ministry of Defence which owns the bases, and US forces both have a public duty of care when it comes to British citizens going about their lawful business, and if this woman was on duty then she represented a public body, albeit a foreign one, and given that it the UK Government that has signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights, they have the duy to conduct a full, open and transparent investigations in to the loss of a life due to actions by a public organisation in Britain and not the US forces.
Whilst the very fact that US forces have ignored the Corners advice and continue to pose a threat to British citizens lives may be a breach of human rights in it's self.
Last edited by Brave New World; 11-12-2022 at 09:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
