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.
a Russian diplomat drove drunk in Ottawa few years back, killed one seriously injured another. Initially he fled back to Moscow but the law caught up to him ended up doing 4 years in a Russian "insitution"
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.
In London the diplomatic corps owes 100M in unpaid congestion charges since 2003,but don't seem to feel any need to cure.
In London the diplomatic corps owes 100M in unpaid congestion charges since 2003,but don't seem to feel any need to cure.
I think you will find that Embassies in London are very different to a British owned military bases in Northamptonshire.
Furthermore the non payment of congestion charges is due to claims that under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Embassies and Diplomats do not have to pay taxes, which some countries they consider the congestion charge to be.
Technical Staff such as Jonathan Sacoolas (an electrician at Croughton) who are based outside of London have no immunity in terms of serious offences, and nor do their spouses or other dependents.
I think you will find that Embassies in London are very different to a British owned military bases in Northamptonshire.
Furthermore the non payment of congestion charges is due to claims that under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Embassies and Diplomats do not have to pay taxes, which some countries they consider the congestion charge to be.
Technical Staff such as Jonathan Sacoolas (an electrician at Croughton) who are based outside of London have no immunity in terms of serious offences, and nor do their spouses or other dependents.
You're seriously deluded if you think Sacoolas was an electrician. An on base electrician hasn't the pull to get his wife transferred out on a military flight, nor do they rate concern enough for someone to do.it on their behalf. He was a qualified Electronic Engineer, having a degree in signals intelligence might be a give away for being a spy.
You'll find that the 1994 agreement does state that Croughton is an annex of the US Embassy, and, if Sacoolas was Diplomatic Staff she gets immunity. Further isn't Anne Sacoolas back at the CIA as a lead analyst or something? If so its over, forget it.
That said this is just retreading the same arguments we've made before, in your lust to try to punish someone who probably just accidentally drove the wrong way on the street by unfamiliarity, at the wrong time, you cherry pick.
You're seriously deluded if you think Sacoolas was an electrician. An on base electrician hasn't the pull to get his wife transferred out on a military flight, nor do they rate concern enough for someone to do.it on their behalf. He was a qualified Electronic Engineer, having a degree in signals intelligence might be a give away for being a spy.
You'll find that the 1994 agreement does state that Croughton is an annex of the US Embassy, and, if Sacoolas was Diplomatic Staff she gets immunity. Further isn't Anne Sacoolas back at the CIA as a lead analyst or something? If so its over, forget it.
That said this is just retreading the same arguments we've made before, in your lust to try to punish someone who probably just accidentally drove the wrong way on the street by unfamiliarity, at the wrong time, you cherry pick.
The base is signals intelligence, it relies on a lot of technical staff including electronic engineers.
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Attorney General and Crown Prosecution Service have stated that Anne Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity at any time, and as of August 2020, the Attorney General for England and Wales is considering trying Sacoolas in absentia on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
It should be noted that all these legal experts are well aware of the international laws relations to Diplomatic Immunity and have examined them and any agreement signed in relation to Croughton.
Whilst according to the High Court submission by Tony Baldry, former Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister and signatory to the diplomatic immunity agreement covering the base at which Sacoolas' husband worked, the agreement was "limited" and did not cover dependants.
Furthermore according to a High Court further submission by former long standing diplomat, Sir Ivor Roberts, who called the claims that Sacoolas was covered by diplomatic immunity "a palpable absurdity". Sir Ivor also referred to the US response as "dishonourable" and "breach of good faith", with such open harsh criticism by a top top expert on all areas of diplomacy.
On 9 July 2020 an adjournment debate on RAF Croughton, in the House of Commons, was led by local Member of Parliament Andrea Leadsom, who focused on Dunn's death and called for the government to intervene and block plans to modify the base.
In response the UK Government has taken permission for planning away from the local authority and may reject any further modification or expansion of the base until the Sacoolas case is settled.
The Judicial Review at the High Court is set for November this year, whilst a date for a possible Criminal Case will be announced by the Attorney General.
According to latest reports the US is now working towards a resolution which will settle the impasse, and some form of trial now looks very likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
The family feel betrayed – by the police for yielding to the FCO, by the FCO for yielding to the US Department of State, and by the Crown Prosecution Service for failing to charge Sacoolas. Her husband has a degree in electrical engineering and they were told he worked at the base as an electrician – which would make them unlikely candidates for diplomatic immunity.
“She’s never had immunity,” Tim says. “How can she? Her bloke’s just an electrician at the base. I’m not being funny. He’s not a diplomat, she’s not a diplomat.” The UK government has never commented on the nature of Jonathan Sacoolas’ work, simply reiterating that its hands were tied by an existing agreement between the two countries.
Again, Charlotte says, this doesn’t add up. “If you were covered by diplomatic immunity, why would you leave the country you are protected in?”
The base is signals intelligence, it relies on a lot of technical staff including electronic engineers.
the Director of Public Prosecutions. Attorney General and Crown Prosecution Service have stated that Anne Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity at any time, and as of August 2020, the Attorney General for England and Wales is considering trying Sacoolas in absentia on a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
It should be noted that all these legal experts are well aware of the international laws relations to Diplomatic Immunity and have examined them and any agreement signed in relation to Croughton.
International law has no bearing if there is a private agreement between the US and UK. There is such an agreement signed 1994 IIRC, and as a treaty has weight of law, given thevUK government can alter the "living unwritten constitution" at will. Further it replaced a previous agreement from 1966 (ballpark) that stated US diplomats working at Croughton must waive their DI, however as you well know families of diplomats share DI, but no such requirement was on their families, this leads me to believe that since then regardless of what the courts may determine moving forwards, that families in Croughton have benefitted from DI since the 1960s.
That being so the courts can review the agreements and determine current legality, but, they cannot retrospectively decide that Sacoolas never had DI at the time, and as we've already discussed the Dominic Raab stood in front of parliament and confirmed Anne Sacoolas had immunity at the time. That implies, he, his cabinet secretary and his entire staff thought she had immunity. That's probably why the US isn't budging, and while Radd Steiger can trumpet "overtures" from the US government as reason to drop the US government lawsuit, you dont drop the case because you "think" your opponent might be softening their position.
International law has no bearing if there is a private agreement between the US and UK. There is such an agreement signed 1994 IIRC, and as a treaty has weight of law, given thevUK government can alter the "living unwritten constitution" at will. Further it replaced a previous agreement from 1966 (ballpark) that stated US diplomats working at Croughton must waive their DI, however as you well know families of diplomats share DI, but no such requirement was on their families, this leads me to believe that since then regardless of what the courts may determine moving forwards, that families in Croughton have benefitted from DI since the 1960s.
That being so the courts can review the agreements and determine current legality, but, they cannot retrospectively decide that Sacoolas never had DI at the time, and as we've already discussed the Dominic Raab stood in front of parliament and confirmed Anne Sacoolas had immunity at the time. That implies, he, his cabinet secretary and his entire staff thought she had immunity. That's probably why the US isn't budging, and while Radd Steiger can trumpet "overtures" from the US government as reason to drop the US government lawsuit, you dont drop the case because you "think" your opponent might be softening their position.
This is a point that has been made numerous times in the other thread on the topic. Countries are free to enter into treaty agreements distinct and separate from the Vienna Convention. And, yep, the U.S. isn't going to budge as it was already determined by both the U.S. and U.K. governments that Anne Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity per the separate agreement. Some apparently want to go back on that now, but it's ultimately a fruitless exercise as the U.S. isn't turning over Anne Sacoolas. Note, I am in favor of reforming these treaties and the idea of diplomatic immunity generally, but that's another story.
International law has no bearing if there is a private agreement between the US and UK. There is such an agreement signed 1994 IIRC, and as a treaty has weight of law, given thevUK government can alter the "living unwritten constitution" at will. Further it replaced a previous agreement from 1966 (ballpark) that stated US diplomats working at Croughton must waive their DI, however as you well know families of diplomats share DI, but no such requirement was on their families, this leads me to believe that since then regardless of what the courts may determine moving forwards, that families in Croughton have benefitted from DI since the 1960s.
That being so the courts can review the agreements and determine current legality, but, they cannot retrospectively decide that Sacoolas never had DI at the time, and as we've already discussed the Dominic Raab stood in front of parliament and confirmed Anne Sacoolas had immunity at the time. That implies, he, his cabinet secretary and his entire staff thought she had immunity. That's probably why the US isn't budging, and while Radd Steiger can trumpet "overtures" from the US government as reason to drop the US government lawsuit, you dont drop the case because you "think" your opponent might be softening their position.
As already pointed out, the fact that Jonathan Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity in relation to serious crimes off base was never disputed. A serious crime being one which carries a sentence of over 5 years such as Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and Barristers from the Crown Prosecution Service examined the laws fully as well as any agreements before determining that Anne Sacoolas did not have Diplomatic Immunity by extension of her husbands role, and it was then decided to charge her with causing death by dangerous driving and then for the UK authorities to issue am Interpol Notice for her arrest.
The MP who signed the agreement as even went on record to say that it was never meant to cover immunity outside of technical work roles and a top Diplomat has gone on record and called the American stance ridiculous.
The UK Prime Minister and Government have stated that there is no Diplomatic Immunity and the case constituents an avoidance of justice, whilst the US are harbouring a fugitive.
The UK Government have also written to South Northamptonshire County Council stating that all Planning Permission for Croughton must now go through the Security of State after Andrea Leadsom the local MP for the area made a speech in the House calling for planning permission for the base to be rejected until Anne Sacoolas was brought to justice.
The Attorney General is now considering trying Anne Sacoolas in absentia, and the Americans are now working on a resolution, whereby Sacoolas can stand trial by video conferencing serve any sentence in the US. Although any sentence is likely to be a fine and a driving ban given judicial precedent in relation to similar cases.
The High Court case in November is separate and will examine the wrongful actions of the Foreign Office in this process, and establish further legal clarity in relation to events.
That said this is just retreading the same arguments we've made before, in your lust to try to punish someone who probably just accidentally drove the wrong way on the street by unfamiliarity, at the wrong time, you cherry pick.
Bit of pot calling the kettle black here.
But if the person just made a mistake, which seems to be the case, why on earth skip the country? Such mistakes incur, at most, a fine and a few months loss of licence, and can result in perhaps a reprimand with no real penalty.
Skipping the country and causing a diplomatic incident as well as a slap in the face for the relatives of the deceased is arrogance in the extreme.
But if the person just made a mistake, which seems to be the case, why on earth skip the country? Such mistakes incur, at most, a fine and a few months loss of licence, and can result in perhaps a reprimand with no real penalty.
Skipping the country and causing a diplomatic incident as well as a slap in the face for the relatives of the deceased is arrogance in the extreme.
Because she could Or should she have metaphorically been held hostage and subject herself to direct attack from the British tabloids and paparazzi? At least in the States she can have some peace.
Fundamentally, though, she didn't skip the country, but left with the permission of both the U.K. and U.S. governments due to her status. But, given that the U.K. is trying to go back on its word here, it is a good thing that she did leave the country.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 09-08-2020 at 12:32 PM..
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.
Or should she have metaphorically been held hostage and subject herself to direct attack from the British tabloids and paparazzi? At least in the States she can have some peace. 
