Harry Dunn death

gmisk

DPP concludes suspect in Harry Dunn death did not have immunity, family told https://jrnl.ie/5200487

Interesting development in this case.
I really doubt his family will get justice but you have to admire their determination

biko

Good, I hope Anne Sacoolas gets extradited from US to UK to stand trial.

unhappys10

Crazy that she hasn't been extradited already. If it was the other way around the US would be hounding the UK.
Hopefully she gets what's coming to her.
It would be nice if they could just do the right thing, it's not like they couldn't do with some good publicity.

Gatling

It will never happen ,unless she volunteer's to return off her own back , even if trump doesn't get re-elected she will never be deported back unless they can guarantee she never faces a real trial

biko

There is precedent. From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK

Quantum Erasure

"...it's just been revoked"

El_Duderino 09

biko wrote: »

There is precedent. From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

unhappys10

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

bobbyy gee

She was a illegal spy
No spy has immunity
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_spy#:~:text=In%20U.S.%20parlance%2C%20the%20same,as%20from%20his%20country's%20embassy).&text=He%20has%20diplomatic%20immunity%20from,country%20if%20suspected%20of%20espionage.

El_Duderino 09

unhappys10 wrote: »

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

You're right. The lawyers will never give them satisfaction. And they're avoiding grieving which is the only real way to get on with their lives.

I presume they can't really work normal jobs or live a normal life while they're fundraising and doing all the legal stuff. The grieving process is what they need not the legal process.

Maybe they can't stop. If that's the case then that's the saddest part. I just hope it ends quickly. Results like yesterday are trivial in reality but must just serve to make them more angry and prolong the whole thing.

Feisar

unhappys10 wrote: »

Guessing you don't have children. If that was my child I would never stop.

Better of spending the money on a hitman to be honest. Pissing into the wind with the legal route.

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

Better of spending the money on a hitman to be honest. Pissing into the wind with the legal route.

And that might give them satisfaction. The legal system isn't designed to give satisfaction to the victims.

Best case scenario is a deal yer wan admits she did it but isn't sentenced. Like a tribunal. But they already know what happened. She hit Harry and the intelligence service, or whoever, made sure she got out of the UK immediately.

The UK doesn't want a trial as it would upset the American government and both their own a d the American intelligence agencies. And the US doesn't want a trial because it would upset their intelligence agencies. Any president who sends her to the UK will look incredibly weak and appeasing (it might be the right thing to do but you know how these things are spun in america).

It woukd be best for them if the legal routes were exhausted quickly so they can leave it knowing they did all they could.

The UK government has to tell them they're pressing the Americans because what else can they say? But nobody expects them to actually do anything about it.

Gregor Samsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And they're avoiding grieving which is the only real way to get on with their lives.

How do you know they're avoiding grieving? One can grieve and still do other things. Grieving isn't a process that you go off into a cave and do, and then come out and say "Ok, I'm done, never have to think about them again."

El_Duderino 09

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

How do you know they're avoiding grieving? One can grieve and still do other things. Grieving isn't a process that you go off into a cave and do, and then come out and say "Ok, I'm done, never have to think about them again."

OK. But grieving is partly about accepting that the person is gone and isn't coming back and beginning to move on with your life. That's part of the grieving process. Spending the next few decades engaged in a legal battle is about the worst way in can possibly imagine to grieve and begin to move on with your life.

Most peope who have a family member die are faced with the reality that their loved one is gone. They go through various stages of grief which is painful but they do it because they have no choice.

But the lawyers are offering the Dunnes a choice to postpone the normal process of grief. I'd say most people would take the option to postpone grief if they had such an option. But most peope don't have any option so they grieve and begin to get on with their life.

Gregor Samsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK. But grieving is partly about accepting that the person is gone and isn't coming back and beginning to move on with your life.

I see no indication in anything they've said that they aren't 100% aware that nothing will bring him back. As for "getting on with your life", sometimes life changes significantly after you lose someone, and what you get on with isn't what you left off. Maybe getting justice for Harry is just part of life for them now. Grief is the reaction to bereavement, and despite the "5 stages" theory people often quote (which was based on research on the experiences of people dying, not people who were bereaved, and is now debunked), I would say that seeking justice for someone unlawfully killed is a natural reaction to such an event, and therefore a normal and vital part of the grieving process for them.

I have admiration for them, as I do for the family of Stardust victims, Hillsborough victims, and anyone else who has had to fight to get answers as to why their loved ones died without people being held accountable. I'd hope I had their drive and fortitude in a similar situation, but I fear that I wouldn't. That's not to say that they'll get what they want - the US Government is a formidable opponent - but fair play to them.

El_Duderino 09

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I see no indication in anything they've said that they aren't 100% aware that nothing will bring him back. As for "getting on with your life", sometimes life changes significantly after you lose someone, and what you get on with isn't what you left off. Maybe getting justice for Harry is just part of life for them now. Grief is the reaction to bereavement, and despite the "5 stages" theory people often quote (which was based on research on the experiences of people dying, not people who were bereaved, and is now debunked), I would say that seeking justice for someone unlawfully killed is a natural reaction to such an event, and therefore a normal and vital part of the grieving process for them.
...

Yeah, I specifically didn't menton the 5 stages theory. But the nirmal grieving prices has various phases which can be understood.

But the bolded bit is what really stands out. What leads you to believe that they will get what they want through the court system? Why do you think that "justice" as the court system offers it, is going to make things better for them? Is the benefit you think they'll get, from getting justice or from perpetually seeking justice?

Gregor Samsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

But the bolded bit is what really stands out. What leads you to believe that they will get what they want through the court system? Why do you think that "justice" as the court system offers it, is going to make things better for them? Is the benefit you think they'll get, from getting justice or from perpetually seeking justice?

I merely think their search for justice is a natural, normal and possibly inevitable reaction to his death. You are suggesting that they should stop so that they can grieve, I'm saying that it is their grief (more specifically, a part of their grief). It's easy do a cost/benefit analysis from an objective position detached from their lives. But your opinion or my opinion on that has no bearing on what they should do, or how they should do it. I just think it's better to let people grieve than to judge them for how they do it.

El_Duderino 09

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I merely think their search for justice is a natural, normal and possibly inevitable reaction to his death. You are suggesting that they should stop so that they can grieve, I'm saying that it is their grief (more specifically, a part of their grief). It's easy do a cost/benefit analysis from an objective position detached from their lives. But your opinion or my opinion on that has no bearing on what they should do, or how they should do it. I just think it's better to let people grieve than to judge them for how they do it.

Ok. You've repeated why you think they're doing it. But what about the questions I asked?

Gregor Samsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok but what about the questions I asked?

I don't have an answer to them, because I'm not engaging in a cost/benefit analysis of their grief.

El_Duderino 09

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

I don't have an answer to them, because I'm not engaging in a cost/benefit analysis of their grief.

Yes you are. How else could you characterise your endorsement of their approach?

Gregor Samsa

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes you are. How else could you characterise your endorsement of their approach?

"live and let live".

El_Duderino 09

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

"live and let live".

Sure. I think they'd be well advised to drop it and get on with their lives. No lawyer is going to tell them the reality that they'll almost certainly never get what they want and even if they do, it's not what they need.

They need the normal time and support (from family and friends, not lawyers and sky news and paparazzi) to grieve and begin to get on with their lives without Harry.

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. I think they'd be well advised to drop it and get on with their lives. No lawyer is going to tell them the reality that they'll almost certainly never get what they want and even if they do, it's not what they need.

They need the normal time and support (from family and friends, not lawyers and sky news and paparazzi) to grieve and begin to get on with their lives without Harry.

what makes you think they are not getting those things? they are not mutually exclusive. they can fight for justice and grieve at the same time.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what makes you think they are not getting those things? they are not mutually exclusive. they can fight for justice and grieve at the same time.

International fight for justice, constantly fundraising and legal wrangling, meeting politicians who have to look into their eyes and lie to them, and news in their face at every step, is not in any manual of beat practice for grieving.

They might be grieving as normal, but given how abnormal their lives have been since his death, it's really unlikely they can grieve.

Anyone who's been through grief knows that the grief really starts after the fanfare of the funeral. It's when you try go back to normal life without the person who died that grief really kicks in. The adjustment to the reality that life is going on without the person who died. They aren't getting that.

For the Dunn family the fanfare of the funeral has never really ended. It has only intensified beyond anything any normal family will ever face and it is being extended due to the trial.

Do you think it's possible to grieve normally in such an abnormal situation?

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

International fight for justice, constantly fundraising and legal wrangling, meeting politicians who have to look into their eyes and lie to them, and news in their face at every step, is not in any manual of beat practice for grieving.

They might be grieving as normal, but given how abnormal their lives have been since his death, it's really unlikely they can grieve.

Anyone who's been through grief knows that the grief really starts after the fanfare of the funeral. It's when you try go back to normal life without the person who died that grief really kicks in. The adjustment to the reality that life is going on without the person who died. They aren't getting that.

For the Dunn family the fanfare of the funeral has never really ended. It has only intensified beyond anything any normal family will ever face and it is being extended due to the trial.

Do you think it's possible to grieve normally in such an abnormal situation?

I'm familiar with grief, thanks. Having a sense of purpose can be very useful in difficult situations. that doesn't mean they dont have time for nrmal grieving, whatever "normal" grieving is.

ChikiChiki

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

The two main people involved are Trump and Johnson and they haven't a shred of decency between them.

I maintain that the family would be well advised to grieve for their son and move on as best they can. They will spend the rest of their lives looking for "justice". They'll be bled dry by the lawyers. Milked for all the money they can raise. Very sad.

I hope they can drop in and just get on with grieving and get on with their lives.

**** that. Keep fighting to the end to get justice for their son even in the face of ruin. Not a chance I would drop it.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm familiar with grief, thanks. Having a sense of purpose can be very useful in difficult situations. that doesn't mean they dont have time for nrmal grieving, whatever "normal" grieving is.

A focus on something else might well be a good thing while grieving. But not if it's a focus back on the very subject of the grief. Thats not a way to move on - it's a way to prevent them moving on by redoubling focus back on the event.

In all serious, do you not see the difference between a normal process of grief and what the Dunn family is going through? I mean, for the sake of the argument you might pretend the Dunne family experience is normal or you might pretend you don't know what the normal grieving process involves, but how can you think this is a sensible way to grieve?

El_Duderino 09

ChikiChiki wrote: »

**** that. Keep fighting to the end to get justice for their son even in the face of ruin. Not a chance I would drop it.

Nobody is asking you or the Dunn family to drop it. On the contrary, they're being actively encouraged and milked by lots of vested interests including the lawyers, the media who both make good money from their quest, and the well meaning public who enjoy following the drama and the quest for justice.

It would take a good friend to encourage them to take another route.

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A focus on something else might well be a good thing while grieving. But not if it's a focus back on the very subject of the grief. Thats not a way to move on - it's a way to prevent them moving on by redoubling focus back on the event.

In all serious, do you not see the difference between a normal process of grief and what the Dunn family is going through? I mean, for the sake of the argument you might pretend the Dunne family experience is normal or you might pretend you don't know what the normal grieving process involves, but how can you think this is a sensible way to grieve?

of course they are not going through anything normal, of course they are not. forgetting what happened isnt going to help them though. It is perfectly normal to seek justice for a loved one.

What exactly is the charge for this woman?
It wasn't a hit and run, I believe she stayed with the lad until the ambulance arrived.
As far as I can see the only charge would be careless driving which is very hard to prove without witnesses.
Maybe avoiding arrest, but that's far too complex a legal and political issue to hold out any hope of a conviction.

From her perspective, what would going back to face the charges solve for anyone?

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

What exactly is the charge for this woman?
It wasn't a hit and run, I believe she stayed with the lad until the ambulance arrived.
As far as I can see the only charge would be careless driving which is very hard to prove without witnesses.
Maybe avoiding arrest, but that's far too complex a legal and political issue to hold out any hope of a conviction.

From her perspective, what would going back to face the charges solve for anyone?

dangerous driving causing death.

Gregor Samsa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As far as I can see the only charge would be careless driving which is very hard to prove without witnesses.

As mentioned, the charge is Causing Death By Dangerous Driving. There’s evidence she was driving in the wrong side of the road - forensic, eye witnesses, CCTV and her own admission. So there appears to be as solid a case as one can have.

CDBDD carries a sentence of up to 14 years (of course, she’s most likely get less), so there’s a significant personal incentive for her not to go back (apart from the political one).

Zebra3

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah but this is different. This isn't a drug dealer or a thief. This is a spy. That means there are national security implications. Not in terms of actually harming national security, but the precedent of extraditng spys is something that they won't challenge.

Was it not her husband who was a spy and she was basically "just a housewife"?

Quantum Erasure

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/13/harry-dunn-anne-sacoolas-to-face-criminal-trial-in-the-uk-over-teenagers-death

Anne Sacoolas is due to face criminal proceedings in the UK, charged with causing the death by dangerous driving of the 19-year-old motorcyclist Harry Dunn.

The case would be heard at Westminster magistrates court on 18 January, the Crown Prosecution Service said. It is understood that she will appear via video link, although a spokesperson for the law firm representing Sacoolas said: “While we have always been willing to discuss a virtual hearing, there is no agreement at this time.”

The Dunn family have always said they wanted her to face justice in the UK, and it is not clear what would happen if she was found guilty or whether she would serve a sentence or pay any fine in the US.

original thread here:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058020677/us-diplomats-wife-flees-home-claiming-diplomatic-immunity-after-fatal-collision/p1

BattleCorp1

I'll get plenty of hate for this comment but here goes.

I absolutely sympathise with the Dunne Family. They have lost their son and I can understand why they want their pound of flesh. That said, Anne Sacoolas didn't set out to kill anyone. As far as I'm aware she wasn't speeding, drunk or drugged or engaging in anything else dangerous other than driving on the wrong side of the road. Yes, I know, that's illegal and it's a huge mistake that cost the young man his life but it was a mistake that's easy to make when you come from a country that drives on the opposite side of the road.

I can understand wanting to jail someone for causing death by dangerous driving if they were driving at 200mph or were scuttered drunk, but Anne Sacoolas made an error that's probably more common than we realise. I personally know of two incidents of the same here in Ireland that resulted in crashes but luckily no deaths (one was the boss in my old job, a German who momentarily forgot where he was and the other was an Austrian truck driver).

I'm of the opinion that Anne Sacoolas made a mistake that had huge consequences, but it was still a mistake nonetheless. Do I think Anne Sacoolas should be jailed for this mistake - no, I don't. Would I feel differently if it was my son killed, absolutely. But the law works better when emotion is left out of it.

crinkley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118325757#Comment_118325757

This could have certainly been her defence but she ran. I can certainly understand the hurt caused that this woman thinks shes above the law and doesn't have to answer for her actions, which she should whether they were deliberate or not.

I don't think the family will get much comfort in a video link appearance but at least they have an opportunity for answers, can't see her being extradited if found guilty of dangerous driving etc

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118325976#Comment_118325976

I don't think the family will get any comfort as I can't see Socoolas appearing via video link. What obligation is she under to do so? Her lawyer said that hasn't been agreed.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-59643750

crinkley

actually wouldn't surprise me considering her character to date if she didn't appear. Think Liz Truss will face a lot of pressure considering the Assange deal earlier but I don't believe the theories that this deal has been done as some straight swap

Hotblack Desiato

Nobody sets off on a journey intending to cause a collision or kill someone, but when it happens it should be dealt with in a court, and the ability to flit off to another country does not affect that.

Manic Moran

Can't say I agree with the DPP's conclusions on this. If one looks into why diplomats and their families have immunity in the first place, it is obvious why such inviolability should not be voided (Regardless of whether British law permits such a decision).

Should Socoolas be sent back? Yes, I believe an extradition request should be granted, but that's not for the British to decide.

BattleCorp1

Hey Manic, what's the US Government's take on her having immunity? Do they assert that she had diplomatic immunity or not?

I haven't been following this very closely but I see that the UK High Court found back towards the end of 2020 that she did have diplomatic immunity.

Yurt2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114575481#Comment_114575481

Both were CIA officers. She was notified to the UK Foreign Office as an accompanying spouse (traveling on a diplomatic passport). Both were doing signals-related work on the RAF base. Whether the UK was aware of this is unknown.

Friendly countries tend to have an informal equivalency arrangement limiting the number of intelligence officers posted to their respective countries under diplomatic cover. This could have been a CIA workaround - perhaps the UK assented to it with a wink and a nod, perhaps they had no idea.

crinkley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118327162#Comment_118327162

Wasn't Dominic Rabb, then Foreign Secretary, heavily criticised and has since said that he should have put British citizens above the UK-US relationships, sounds like some wink and a nod indeed

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118327162#Comment_118327162

I don't think it's clear whether she was an active spy's or if she was entitled to be viewed as a spy and so entitled to immunity through marriage.

If someone is a spy living in London then it's prudent to assume their spouse is also involved to some extent. So she might or might not have actually been involved but the UK government made sure she was treated with immunity and was flown out of the country before the justice system could catch up with her. I doubt we'll ever know one way or the other whether she was an active spy or if they just gave her immunity retroactively to get her out quickly.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118326042#Comment_118326042

What do you think will give them actual comfort? Seeing her in person? Seeing her admit to the killing (we all know she killed him)? An apology? Seeing her suffer by being imprisoned?

I don't think the justice system is in any way set up to comfort the victims so if they're after comfort then I think they're chasing something they will never get through the justice system. I think the best thing they can hope for is to set their goal at getting an apology via video link and her being convicted in UK court while living in america and draw a line under it, because that's the absolute maximum they will get.

What do you think will actually comfort the family?

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118365290#Comment_118365290

I'd imagine that the family will get no comfort to be honest. I'm sure they'd like to see her behind bars but I don't think that will happen. Actually, I think nothing will happen. I can't see her taking part in the trial either in person or by video link. Can she be tried in absentia in the uk?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118366030#Comment_118366030

Not sure about whether she can be tried in the UK without her participation.

It would be one thing if she can be tried from the US plead guilty and apologise and then be sentenced so that if she ever goes back to the UK she would serve the sentence. But she might have to give a mealy mouthed, half apology which was crafted by a lawyer to make sure she doesn't admit any guilt. I really doubt that would do anything but upset the family further. I don't know how these things work in reality. But I really doubt any of it will make the family happy until they draw a line under it and nove on with their lives.

BattleCorp1

Another point I'm wondering about is whether or not Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity or not. If she had diplomatic immunity, why is there a trial at all?

Was the diplomatic immunity that she had at the time she left the UK revoked or was she not entitled to it in the first place?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118366596#Comment_118366596

They treated her as if she had immunity and the US suggested she had immunity all along. Its not clear whether she had immunity as a spy or they created the immunity after the accident. But its national security and diplomatic relations, so none of the parties involved have to be transparent about it.

The trial would be completely with her consent and would involve no enforceable or practical punishment. It would presumably be carefully curated not to set a precedent which would compel other spys or diplomats to stand any kind of trial in the future.

rock22

from what we know, is this not careless driving rather than dangerous driving, albeit with terrible consquences.

Irrespective of the actual charge, is it now possible for Ms Saccolas to get a fair trial in England? It seems the whole matter has turned into a political football and , if I were her, I would expect my government to keep me safe from such a show trial.

LillySV

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118325757#Comment_118325757

So it’s ok offences to drive on wrong side of road… what’s your thoughts on texting and driving?? Is that a harmless mistake too??? Well as long as they weren’t speeding like …?