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.
The most important part of the case is that the family can have closure.
In terms of the family they have already agreed to a pay out in relation to settlement of the civil case.
As for any sentence it will most likely to be non-custodial, although any sentence will stand in relation to the UK and any nation that the UK has an extradition treaty with.The US has also stated that diplomatic immunity no longer applies to Sacoolas, so an extradition request could be made following any sentence.
The diplomatic immunity loophole has been closed, and can never be used again, whilst the case had caused significant strain between the UK and US, and may effect future similar requests in relation by the US in relation to immunity.
There is also the question of a parliamentary inquiry, which is something the Labour who seem to be running high in terms of recent polls, have suggested.
The Labour Party are generally far less pro-American especially in relation to those on the left of the party, many of whom would be happy to see US bases close.
It's the US itself that has lost big time through all of this mess, and over 80% of Britons no longer believe in a special relationship.
The most important part of the case is that the family can have closure.
If all they wanted is closure, they could have accepted Trump's offer to meet with her and let her apologise. That would have been closure. But that is clearly not what they are looking for. They are looking for her to be punished, and that is not going to happen, because she is out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
If all they wanted is closure, they could have accepted Trump's offer to meet with her and let her apologise. That would have been closure. But that is clearly not what they are looking for. They are looking for her to be punished, and that is not going to happen, because she is out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
The Dunn family did later accept an out of court financial settlement in the US.
As for R v Salcoolas, as is being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service and not the Dunn family, and the CPS have to use The Code for Crown Prosecutors in relation to the public interest test, as well as tests in relation to the evidence being reliable, credible and admissible coupled with weight of evidence.
The R now stands for Rex which is the Latin word for King, the R stands for Regina when there is a Queen, whilst top Barristers who take silk are now Kings Counsel (KC) rather than Queens Counsel (QC).
So the case is the Crown versus Anne Sacoolas and not the Dunn family, and whilst the Dunn family will be watching the case, they were not witnesses to most of the events and have nothing to do with the prosecution. Harry's dad did see his son before he died in hospital however he didn't witness the actual traffic incident, whilst the family may be allowed to given an impact statement to the Court, if the defendant is found guilty.
The Dunn family have welcomed the prosecution, as a means to gaining further insight in to events, as for the Crow Court case, a Jury will decide on the case, and a Circuit or High Court Judge on a relevant punishment.
Legal sources have also suggested she could serve her sentence in the US as a means to closure in relation to the case, which could range from a short prison sentence or suspended sentence through to community service, as there will be aggravating and mitigating circumstances should the defendant be found guilty, and this would be for a Judge to weight up in relation to sentencing.
I can not write any further in relation to the exact facts of the case or guilt or innocence any further than that due to sub judice laws.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-30-2022 at 04:52 AM..
If all they wanted is closure, they could have accepted Trump's offer to meet with her and let her apologise. That would have been closure. But that is clearly not what they are looking for. They are looking for her to be punished, and that is not going to happen, because she is out of the jurisdiction of the UK courts.
You seem to agree that she is guilty then? Lets here what YOU think on the matter? You think she has fled justice and the family should be satisfied with 'I'm sorry but I am American and therefore I am above the laws of the UK'?
You seem to agree that she is guilty then? Lets here what YOU think on the matter? You think she has fled justice and the family should be satisfied with 'I'm sorry but I am American and therefore I am above the laws of the UK'?
Of course she was responsible for the death of Harry Dunn. But she can not be held legally accountable, because she had diplomatic immunity. I think I have made it pretty clear in this thread, that I do not like diplomatic immunity. I don't think there should be such a thing as diplomatic immunity, but as long as that is the law, you have to respect it.
Of course she was responsible for the death of Harry Dunn. But she can not be held legally accountable, because she had diplomatic immunity. I think I have made it pretty clear in this thread, that I do not like diplomatic immunity. I don't think there should be such a thing as diplomatic immunity, but as long as that is the law, you have to respect it.
Without diplomatic immunity, countries like the Soviet Union would mercilessly harass diplomats for grins and giggles by trumping up charges. DI exists for valid reasons.
Without diplomatic immunity, countries like the Soviet Union would mercilessly harass diplomats for grins and giggles by trumping up charges. DI exists for valid reasons.
Well you are creating a certain group of people who are above the law and can kill people and get away with it. You think that is a good idea. I think it's a really bad idea. We will have to agree to disagree.
Well you are creating a certain group of people who are above the law and can kill people and get away with it. You think that is a good idea. I think it's a really bad idea. We will have to agree to disagree.
Without diplomatic immunity, American diplomats in places that are less than friendly would be charged with crimes they did not commit, simply to annoy the US. There have been instances of diplomats killing people, but they are few and far between, especially intentional killings. If diplomatic immunity is not waived in those cases, the diplomat is usually made persona non grata and is no longer allowed to remain in the receiving country.
Of course she was responsible for the death of Harry Dunn. But she can not be held legally accountable, because she had diplomatic immunity. I think I have made it pretty clear in this thread, that I do not like diplomatic immunity. I don't think there should be such a thing as diplomatic immunity, but as long as that is the law, you have to respect it.
The point is SHE didn't have 'diplomatic immunity', she just fled, how would you feel if somebody ran over your kid then fled the country? Your claim that "they could have accepted Trump's offer to meet with her and let her apologise" almost beggars belief! Would you simply accept an apology and then 'shrug it off'? Would that be 'closure' for you?
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.
