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 think this Sacoolas woman got off lightly, I doubt any of this sentence will be enforced in the US.
It's the best that can be done in the circumstances.
The Judge stated "it's obvious no enforcement can be carried out, and an immediate jail sentence would have needed Sacoolas to surrender to the court so the judge's only real option was a suspended sentence.
The Judge therefore had no choice but to suspend the 8 month prison term for 12 months, along with imposing a 12 month driving ban.
There has also been changes made in relation to the process around exemptions from diplomatic immunity, according to the Foreign Secretary.
Harry Dunn's family were just pleased that she received a criminal record, and that they saw some justice done.
It's the best that can be done in the circumstances.
The Judge stated "it's obvious no enforcement can be carried out, and an immediate jail sentence would have needed Sacoolas to surrender to the court so the judge's only real option was a suspended sentence.
The Judge therefore had no choice but to suspend the 8 month prison term for 12 months, along with imposing a 12 month driving ban.
There has also been changes made in relation to the process around exemptions from diplomatic immunity, according to the Foreign Secretary.
Harry Dunn's family were just pleased that she received a criminal record, and that they saw some justice done.
The Judge stated "it's obvious no enforcement can be carried out', and an immediate jail sentence would have needed Sacoolas to surrender to the court so the judge's only real option was a suspended sentence.
The Judge therefore had no choice but to suspend the 8 month prison terms for 12 months, along with imposing a 12 month driving ban.
So she didn't get the sentence she deserved, she got the only sentence the judge could give her, which was basically nothing. People in the UK have very low expectations for justice.
But it worked out for the best for everyone. The Dunn family is happy and Anne Sacoolas is happy. She got off scot-free and can now travel freely without fear of any Interpol arrest warrants in her name. Everybody is happy.
So she didn't get the sentence she deserved, she got the only sentence the judge could give her, which was basically nothing. People in the UK have very low expectations for justice.
But it worked out for the best for everyone. The Dunn family is happy and Anne Sacoolas is happy. She got off scot-free and can now travel freely without fear of any Interpol arrest warrants in her name. Everybody is happy.
On the one hand you are stating that in the US she would have received nothing but are critical of the UK when she received a suspended sentence for refusing to return to the UK.
Anne Sacoolas, claimed she didn't want to return to the UK, due to death threats, however as the Judge pointed out most of these threats came from the people in the US themselves.
It was pointed out that the UK police had made four sets of provisions to keep her secure if she were to return to the UK.
As for Sacoolas, she now has a UK Criminal Record, and has stated she will not be returning to the UK, whilst the Home Secretary James Cleverly has stated that the case has led to changes in terms of immunity and extradition in order that Britain is never put in the same position again in relation to Croughton.
The family only sought to bring Mrs Sacoolas before a British Court and see her sentenced, in the same way as anyone else, and to receive a Criminal Record, and they have achieved this. as well as receiving a significant civil settlement.
As well as the changes to extradition and immunity, the recent Mikayla Hayes saw a ruling in relation to US military jurisdiction by a Senior District Judge at Westminster Magistrates, who ruled against the USAF in terms of jurisdiction in relation to a Court Martial and instead the case will now be heard at Norwich Crown Court.
Last edited by Brave New World; 12-10-2022 at 06:41 AM..
So she didn't get the sentence she deserved, she got the only sentence the judge could give her, which was basically nothing. People in the UK have very low expectations for justice.
But it worked out for the best for everyone. The Dunn family is happy and Anne Sacoolas is happy. She got off scot-free and can now travel freely without fear of any Interpol arrest warrants in her name. Everybody is happy.
There son was run over, killed and the woman responsible ran off! I don't think 'happy' is the right word somehow do you?
Perhaps somebody needs to go and run over one of her kids, maybe that's biblical 'justice'?
On the one hand you are stating that in the US she would have received nothing but are critical of the UK when she received a suspended sentence for refusing to return to the UK.
Did I say that? I don't recall it.
First it's difficult to say what she would have received in the US. Because the US includes over 50 different jurisdictions all with different laws and different viewpoints. Based on that, she could receive anything from nothing to life in prison in the US. Based on random cases that I can think of, of people convicted of causing death by reckless driving. I expect she would have received about 3 years in prison, followed by probation and a 10 year ban on driving. That would be about the average I think she would likely receive in the US.
But in some parts of the US it's entirely possible that she would have never even been charged, or would have received a suspended sentence. Especially if maybe it was a case of a UK driver who was not familiar with driving on the right. That could garner some sympathy, or maybe not.
On the other side of the spectrum, I can think of a truck-lorry driver who received a mandatory 110 year sentence in the State of Colorado for a reckless driving crash that resulted in four deaths and dozens more injured. In that case, public consensus that the sentence was way too severe caused the State Governor to commute his sentence to 10 years. Which will allow him to get out in less time then that.
Someone convicted of causing death by driving on the wrong side of the road in the US typically get about 10 to 20 years of prison time. But those cases virtually always involve drunk driving. Which is intentional, so not really relevant to this case.
First it's difficult to say what she would have received in the US. Because the US includes over 50 different jurisdictions all with different laws and different viewpoints. Based on that, she could receive anything from nothing to life in prison in the US. Based on random cases that I can think of, of people convicted of causing death by reckless driving. I expect she would have received about 3 years in prison, followed by probation and a 10 year ban on driving. That would be about the average I think she would likely receive in the US.
But in some parts of the US it's entirely possible that she would have never even been charged, or would have received a suspended sentence. Especially if maybe it was a case of a UK driver who was not familiar with driving on the right. That could garner some sympathy, or maybe not.
On the other side of the spectrum, I can think of a truck-lorry driver who received a mandatory 110 year sentence in the State of Colorado for a reckless driving crash that resulted in four deaths and dozens more injured. In that case, public consensus that the sentence was way too severe caused the State Governor to commute his sentence to 10 years. Which will allow him to get out in less time then that.
Someone convicted of causing death by driving on the wrong side of the road in the US typically get about 10 to 20 years of prison time. But those cases virtually always involve drunk driving. Which is intentional, so not really relevant to this case.
The Civil case and not criminal case have been concluded, and changes made to US immunity and extradition arrangements.
Further recommendations will not be made in relation to the Coroners Inquest, and the case will also be the subject of a lot of Parliamentary scrutiny in relation to immunity, extradition and future requests from US authorities.
Thankfully Harry's family and many friends, are much better people than either the UK or US Government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian (10th December 2022)
The path to an inquest is clear now that criminal proceedings have concluded, following a campaign by Dunn’s family to bring Sacoolas to justice after she had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf by the US government and left Britain 19 days after the incident.
Dunn’s family and their representatives have been working with legal counsel on plans to press for the coroner to make findings in relation to safety at other US bases and training for personnel based there.
A spokesperson for the family said they would invite the coroner to undertake a deep and searching inquiry into the full circumstances leading to Dunn’s death, “including the failure of both the US and UK governments to address the causes of thousands of fatalities and serious injuries that British citizens have suffered outside US bases over the decades and to take action to prevent them. It is the family’s strongly held view that both governments have Harry’s blood on their hands.”
The family have pointed to a Hansard recording of a parliamentary exchange as far back as 1983 in which the then minister David Mellor, responding for the government, made reference to “hundreds, if not thousands” of incidents outside bases containing US personnel.
Dunn’s family will also continue to press for an inquiry, which is backed by the Labour party, that would focus on areas including the handling of the affair by Dominic Raab when he was foreign secretary.
Raab has been under pressure to declare what he was told about the employment background of Sacoolas, whose lawyers said she could not come to the UK for the sentencing hearing this week because the US government had said it would put “US interests” at risk.
It has emerged that the US embassy told the Foreign Office that it intended to remove Sacoolas from the UK after the incident “unless there is a strong objection”. Raab told parliament in 2019 that the UK did object strongly. Dunn’s family want evidence of this to be disclosed.
In a similar vein, if an American tourist crosses a street in London after having looked only to the left, and an approaching motorist swerves to avoid the tourist, and the motorist dies, should the tourist be prosecuted for causing that death?
What public policy goal is served by putting someone who accidentally drove in the wrong lane in prison?
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.
