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.
As a point of principle, we should send her back to the UK, though I confess I have no knowledge of the legalities of sending her back if she does not consent.
As a point of principle, we should send her back to the UK, though I confess I have no knowledge of the legalities of sending her back if she does not consent.
This is now going to be settled via the Courts and a Judical Review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
The Dunn family will launch a judicial review into how the FCO accepted Sacoolas’s claim for diplomatic immunity and then failed to tell them that she had left the country.
The FCO said it was not informed by the US embassy until 16 September that she had left the country on a US military plane the day before, and the family were not informed of this for a further 10 days. The Foreign Office has held only one meeting with the Dunn family since the accident on 27 August, Tim Dunn told LBC on Friday morning.
The judicial review will also examine the US-UK exchange of notes dating back to 1995 that, according to the FCO, waived diplomatic immunity for staff at RAF Croughton base but not for their spouses – an apparently untested arrangement that the FCO has admitted is anomalous. Sacoolas was married to Jonathan Sacoolas, who worked at the base.
The family has also referred Northamptonshire police to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) over its role in allowing Sacoolas to leave the country. The police have insisted it would not in retrospect do anything differently.
Finally, the family are trying to launch civil proceedings against Sacoolas in a US court. A lawyer for the Dunn family, Radd Seiger, is due to travel to the US to discuss such an action with lawyers. He is being advised by two leading human rights lawyers, Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens.
It now seems following the charging of Anne Sacoolas, and the issuing of an Interpol Notice, and with a Judicial Review in November and Criminal trial in Sacoolas’s absence, along with threats to future planning permission at Croughton, that the US Government are preparing to relent and to find a solution.
One possible solution may be a virtual trial and any sentence served in the US.
In terms of the base the situation has now been clarified and dependents do not have immunity, just as technical staff do not have immunity in relation to serious offences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Family acknowledge US government ‘working towards’ Anne Sacoolas facing UK justice system.
The family of Harry Dunn have withdrawn their intention to sue the US government over his death in a bid to find a “resolution to the impasse”.
The 19-year-old’s parents, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, previously said they would pursue a claim against Donald Trump’s administration for its handling of their son’s case.
But Charles has told the Press Association that the family “can now see that the US government are working towards” suspect Anne Sacoolas facing the UK justice system.
The US Department of State recently said it was looking for a “reasonable resolution” after news emerged that the UK attorney general, Suella Braverman, was considering the possibility of a virtual trial or a trial in Sacoolas’s absence.
I told you in your thread in current affairs, that's now been locked, that the US Govt. was content to let the UK justice system run its course. Now we see they are actually co-operating. There is no clamor in the US to prevent her from facing consequences.
I told you in your thread in current affairs, that's now been locked, that the US Govt. was content to let the UK justice system run its course. Now we see they are actually co-operating. There is no clamor in the US to prevent her from facing consequences.
There was a clamour in the US to stop her facing justice, which is why she was flown out of Mildenhall in a private jet and the US refused extradition.
The US has changed it's stance since planning permission for the base was thrown in to question and an Interpol Notice was issued.
The US claims of DI were also condemned by experts and even the Minister who signed the Croughton deal, and the CPS charges confirmed this.
The Judicial Review by the High Court in November may also make the US position look laughable and a trial in absence would only further the embarrassment for the US, which would then be harbouring a UK fugitive whilst pretending to have a Special Relationship with the UK at the same time.
There was a clamour in the US to stop her facing justice, which is why she was flown out of Mildenhall in a private jet and the US refused extradition.
The US has changed it's stance since planning permission for the base was thrown in to question and an Interpol Notice was issued.
The US claims of DI were also condemned by experts and even the Minister who signed the Croughton deal, and the CPS charges confirmed this.
The Judicial Review by the High Court in November may also make the US position look laughable and a trial in absence would only further the embarrassment for the US, which would then be harbouring a UK fugitive whilst pretending to have a Special Relationship with the UK at the same time.
Who was clamoring? It certainly wasn't the public. What's your evidence?*She was already back in the US before the public knew anything about it.
As far as I can tell, to the extent that the public knows anything about it at all, they regard it as an embarrassment for the US, and believe she should not get off scot free.
Who was clamoring? It certainly wasn't the public. What's your evidence?*She was already back in the US before the public knew anything about it.
As far as I can tell, to the extent that the public knows anything about it at all, they regard it as an embarrassment for the US, and believe she should not get off scot free.
The US elected Government and State Department was clamouring, they used every means possible to stop due process, including ridiculous claims of DI and were even annoyed when the UK charged Anne Sacoolas and were apparently furious when the UK issued an Interpol Notice.
However they now seem to want this resolved, and clarification has been out in place stating that dependents do not have DI at Croughton, so this can never be used as an excuse again, whilst it looks like Anne Sacoolas will most likely be tried via video and the sentence be applied in the US.
Whilst I understand the grief of the family I'm not sure what is to be gained by pursuing this woman.
It was quite clearly an accident caused by her temporarily forgetting which side of the road to drive on.
I've done it a number of times over the years.Even when I'd been living in the States for three months and driving perfectly correctly I completely forgot one night coming out of a junction and narrowly avoided a serious crash.
If she's brought back and faces court the most she will be looking at is a driving ban or heavy fine.
It's a sad situation but there are numerous other cases of diplomats claiming immunity when faced with far more serious charges.
Whilst I understand the grief of the family I'm not sure what is to be gained by pursuing this woman.
It was quite clearly an accident caused by her temporarily forgetting which side of the road to drive on.
I've done it a number of times over the years.Even when I'd been living in the States for three months and driving perfectly correctly I completely forgot one night coming out of a junction and narrowly avoided a serious crash.
If she's brought back and faces court the most she will be looking at is a driving ban or heavy fine.
It's a sad situation but there are numerous other cases of diplomats claiming immunity when faced with far more serious charges.
US technical personnel are not immune to British law, for serious offences and neither are their spouses.
Any full immunity is only for certain Diplomats based in London, and in terms of Diplomatic Immunity it was never designed for people not to face immunity for traffic or other offences.
Anne Sacoolas must therefore face the British Courts, in the same way as any one else, including British Diplomats based in the US.
This is an important principal, and must be upheld eve though the sentence is most likely to be non-custodial.
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.
