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.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 17 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself
You're cherry-picking the numbers, likely telling the truth, but not the whole truth. Economical with the truth?
The numbers you quote are meaningless until the full context is known.
Tell me how many applications each country made, and how many were granted, both for those with, and without immunity.
Conservative Party MP David Davis, made a very good speech in the House of Commons earlier this year in relation to why the UK needs to change it's extradition treaty with the US. It was also David Davies who used the figures quoted in his speech as well as citing differences between the two countries legal systems.
Whilst fellow Conservative Member of Parliament Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, quoted the figures of 13 to 0 in relation to immunity waivers in recent decades.
Boris Johnson also stated during PMQ's earlier this year that he would seek a review, and the opposition parties were all in broad agreement with this.
A copy of David Davis's speech is in the link below.
Conservative Party MP David Davis, made a very good speech in the House of Commons earlier this year in relation to why the UK needs to change it's extradition treaty with the US. It was also David Davies who used the figures quoted in his speech as well as citing differences between the two countries legal systems.
Whilst fellow Conservative Member of Parliament Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, quoted the figures of 13 to 0 in relation to immunity waivers in recent decades.
Boris Johnson also stated during PMQ's earlier this year that he would seek a review, and the opposition parties were all in broad agreement with this.
A copy of David Davis's speech is in the link below.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by others in* different threads/forums, answering a simple question with a word soup, in an attempt at avoidance won't cut the mustard.
These extradition cases are tough because there are many red tape on either side that needs review before granting them. In many cases the accused may claim that due to political situation they won't get a fair trial so it sits in some bucket pending more review and diplomatic discussions before it gets pulled out for review. It depends on how serious and how much pressure from politicians.
Even in the US, when someone is killed in an auto accident that involved DUI. It isn't very fair at all that someone DUI kills people only gets maybe 2-4 years in jail.
These extradition cases are tough because there are many red tape on either side that needs review before granting them. In many cases the accused may claim that due to political situation they won't get a fair trial so it sits in some bucket pending more review and diplomatic discussions before it gets pulled out for review. It depends on how serious and how much pressure from politicians.
Even in the US, when someone is killed in an auto accident that involved DUI. It isn't very fair at all that someone DUI kills people only gets maybe 2-4 years in jail. https://www.asianjournal.com/usa/dat...-to-probation/
This one, made it to the news and the driver only got probation.
Wow! He killed a family of five and was sentenced to only one year of probation!
Community outrage might play a part in a judgement and sentencing.
Muzzo was sentenced to 10 years behind bars after pleading guilty to four counts of impaired driving causing death killing a grandfather and his three grandchildren. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...role-1.4892082
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevxu
I can think of three scenarios for the accident:
1. She was passing another car and didn't see the teen in time to pull back.
2. She had some medical crisis which caused her to swerve out of her lane and into the oncoming one.
3. She was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.
The fact that she was "advised" to leave the U.K., which has an honest, fair justice system, and that she did indeed flee, suggests that #3 is the most likely scenario and that the Americans know that she was criminally negligent and conspired to help her escape justice.
Having a Diplomatic Immunity is like having a license to commit crimes.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 17 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Very Man Himself
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, by others in* different threads/forums, answering a simple question with a word soup, in an attempt at avoidance won't cut the mustard.
I have consistently pointed out the law and can do no more than point out the actual differences and reasons why the extradition treaty is being reviewed, if you thing that it is a word soup then that's merely your opinion.
The truth being that this is not some opinion that I hold it is a political reality, and the UK/US extradition treaty is a source of controversy in the UK in relation to both major political parties and most other political parties in the UK.
Whilst there are a lot of issues relating to Brexit and Covid-19 at the moment, the issue of reform of the UK/US extradition treaty is very firmly on the political agenda and reform was the subject of agreement on both sides of the House of Commons earlier this year.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-12-2020 at 03:09 AM..
I have consistently pointed out the law and can do no more than point out the actual differences and reasons why the extradition treaty is being reviewed, if you thing that it is a word soup then that's merely your opinion.
The truth being that this is not some opinion that I hold it is a political reality, and the UK/US extradition treaty is a source of controversy in the UK in relation to both major political parties and most other political parties in the UK.
Whilst there are a lot of issues relating to Brexit and Covid-19 at the moment, the issue of reform of the UK/US extradition treaty is very firmly on the political agenda and reform was the subject of agreement on both sides of the House of Commons earlier this year.
If the US/UK 1995 agreement did indeed not extend immunity to family members of diplomats at Croughton, then what is this about?
It clearly states that from the 1995 agreement US diplomatic personnel had immunity waived except during execution of their duties, however full immunity was still afforded to dependents, of which Anne Sacoolas was one..
Further review implies that their is a question about whether it did or did not apply. Now the courts ruled it was not legal, but, that ruling came after the offense, and after Sacoolas left, and after Raab stated she did have immunity, and after the UK did not lodge any complaint after being informed the Sacoolas family was leaving on October 13th, and before they left three days afterwards on the 16th.
Sure the agreement has become controversial, however, at the time of the incident, it had not been ruled illegal, it had not been renounced by the UK government, and had been in effect for 24 years. I'll even give you that had Jonathan Sacoolas been driving he would not have held immunity. But. He wasn't and clearly there was immunity, otherwise there was no need for both the UK and US to agree a new resolution over Croughton staff and their families.
It clearly states that from the 1995 agreement US diplomatic personnel had immunity waived except during execution of their duties, however full immunity was still afforded to dependents, of which Anne Sacoolas was one..
Further review implies that their is a question about whether it did or did not apply. Now the courts ruled it was not legal, but, that ruling came after the offense, and after Sacoolas left, and after Raab stated she did have immunity, and after the UK did not lodge any complaint after being informed the Sacoolas family was leaving on October 13th, and before they left three days afterwards on the 16th.
Sure the agreement has become controversial, however, at the time of the incident, it had not been ruled illegal, it had not been renounced by the UK government, and had been in effect for 24 years. I'll even give you that had Jonathan Sacoolas been driving he would not have held immunity. But. He wasn't and clearly there was immunity, otherwise there was no need for both the UK and US to agree a new resolution over Croughton staff and their families.
The agreement did not cover serious crimes for staff based at Croughton and made no mention of spouses.
It was never designed to cover spouses according to the actual politician who signed the agreement and top diplomats, and legal experts including the CPS and DPP have confirmed this.
Anne Sacoolas has been charged and is on the Interpol Black List, whilst work is on going in relation to prosecution, which is being considered via video conferencing.
The family are also taking the Foreign Office to a Judicial Review in relation to the way they initially dealt with the case, which was by all accounts unlawful.
The Foreign Office is now in trouble and Dominic Raab is denying any early knowledge of the case in an attempt to try and deflect blame.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 17 hours ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,163 posts, read 13,449,232 times
Reputation: 19454
At the initial pre-case hearing evidence was presented by the then Conservative Foreign Office Minister Tony Baldry who went to Croughton and actually signed the Croughton Agreement in 1995.
Baldry stated that the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base.
The full Judicial Inquiry will be heard this November, and the Court will consider Tony Baldry's evidence, whilst diplomatic expert, Sir Ivor Roberts, called the claim that Sacoolas was covered by diplomatic immunity "a palpable absurdity".
Baldry and Sir Ivor's view is backed up by the Director of Public Prosecution and Crown Prosecution Service as well as the Attorney General, who is now in the process of working towards a prosecution, whereby Anne Sacoolas can be tried remotely and serve any sentence in the US. Although it is highly likely that the sentence will not be custodial and will take the form of a suspended sentence, fine and driving ban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
US claims that the American Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity when she drove into the British motorcyclist Harry Dunn last August have been rejected by the former Conservative minister who signed the agreement covering the base where her husband worked.
In court papers, the former Foreign Office (FCO) minister Tony Baldry said the diplomatic immunity deal reached in 1995 was intended specifically to exclude dangerous driving cases, or indeed any actions not related to the work of the staff at the base.
Now one of Britain's top experts on diplomacy has poured scorn on the British and American argument.
The Dunns' lawyers, headed by Geoffrey Robertson QC, asked Sir Ivor Roberts, a former British ambassador in Serbia, Ireland and Italy, for his opinion. After retiring from the diplomatic service Sir Ivor was head of Trinity College, Oxford.
His report on the arguments produced by the British and US governments, which I have read, is remarkably strongly worded.
He quotes a letter of agreement between the Foreign Office and the US ambassador to Britain in August 1995 about the American personnel at RAF Croughton. This says explicitly that diplomatic immunity for people like Mr Sacoolas would not apply for "acts performed outside the course of their duties".
If Mr Sacoolas wasn't covered for acts outside his duties, Sir Ivor says, it would be absurd for Mrs Sacoolas, who had no official position, to be immune from prosecution when her husband wasn't.
He doesn't mince his words. "It was clearly not anticipated that this agreement might be dishonourably challenged by the US government through their embassy in London," he says.
n Sir Ivor's view both the British and US sides knew that back in 1995 they had agreed that "both agents and their dependants" were subject to British criminal law in their non-work activities at RAF Croughton.
For the Americans to argue the opposite would, he said, be regarded by professional diplomats as a breach of good faith.
Words and expressions like "palpable absurdity", "dishonourably" and "breach of good faith" are rare from a top expert on diplomacy.
I have consistently pointed out the law and can do no more than point out the actual differences and reasons why the extradition treaty is being reviewed, if you thing that it is a word soup then that's merely your opinion.
The truth being that this is not some opinion that I hold it is a political reality, and the UK/US extradition treaty is a source of controversy in the UK in relation to both major political parties and most other political parties in the UK.
Whilst there are a lot of issues relating to Brexit and Covid-19 at the moment, the issue of reform of the UK/US extradition treaty is very firmly on the political agenda and reform was the subject of agreement on both sides of the House of Commons earlier this year.
No-one has disputed that the treaty is controversial in the UK, so simply repeating the same lines over and over again gets us nowhere.
All you needed to do in answer my question was (1): provide the numbers, or (2) say you couldn't or wouldn't. The rest is superfluous, a word soup.*
The agreement did not cover serious crimes for staff based at Croughton and made no mention of spouses.
Exactly!
And the previous agreement stated both staff and dependants had immunity. Thus law being what it is, the 1995 agreement required DI to be waived for staff, it states that, it states Croughton is an annex of the US Embassy, therefore its in my opinion stating that staff would not have DI because they waived it but dependants would as waivers weren't required for them. If you have to give a waiver it implies the person giving it has the option to modify an existing arrangement, but, the waiver only applies to those so waived, and since there was not a requirement for waivers for dependents they by logical induction still had it.
The rationale is typical in law, a new law either creates an entirely new regulation, or modifies an existing one. If its a modification then it covers the areas modified, all else being unaffected. Unless the previous agreement was repealed then its still in effect. Thats how common law works, and why the UK, US and many Common law countries have bizarre laws still in effect.
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.
