Harry Dunn death

deandean

If that woman had stayed and faced the music like any person with a conscience would do, with a good lawyer she would probably have received a suspended sentence.

But she chose to flee. She deserves everything that's coming to her. Which unfortunately will probably not amount to much.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118372062#Comment_118372062

No. Because they are allies the US can waive immunity, not the UK.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380566#Comment_118380566

Yeah. I know that. What's that got to do with the post you quoted?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380930#Comment_118380930

You seem to have misunderstood my post, which you quoted. I was trying to bring it back to the point I was making. Allowing immunity to remain in this case is wrong, and a misuse of immunity between allies.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118381040#Comment_118381040

Yeah but I explained why I think immunity is working fine in this case - because it would set a precedent. Do you have any comment on that at all?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118381223#Comment_118381223

What precedent are you worried about, that a country voluntarily removes immunity for THEIR national for a non political crime? How could that be a worring precedent?

If, as I think you are suggesting, a foreign agent gets set up on a trumped up charge... how does the above scenario endanger them or embolden the foreign power to so do?

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118381253#Comment_118381253

Just in all the obvious ways. If they do the right thing this time there will be greater expectation of them to do the right thing next time.

This is an issue between friendly nations. What happens when China accuses their diplomats (spys) of non political crimes? Financial crimes or sexual assaults or whatever? Should they also waive immunity in those cases? What does that do to morale in the diplomatic service? Why would they do it, just because it's the right thing to do?

It muddies the waters in totally unnecessary ways. That's one of the reasons why I think they won't do it.

What do you think will actually happen in this case and why?

If anyone commits a crime there shouldn't be an affect on morale if they get charged for it.

China can frankly Fuk off if they tried it. I've assumed it being used among ally nations.

In this case... the UK will try to save face. She certainly won't do jail time, and the US will decide what will happen.

Do you think if a low level UK diplomat caused the death of a US citizen and made national headlines the diplomat would be allowed skip home?

Packrat

People here seem to be getting hung up on preserving diplomatic immunity somehow..

That's mad, - that somehow a crime committed by a spy shouldn't be punished because they are a spy..

Is Harry Dunn's life worth less than the soccer mom/spy's comfort or freedom to just carry on?

Agree with those saying the family should just move on or hire a hit man, because they'll never get any modicum of justice up against the US.

Another case of might will be right unfortunately.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118382473#Comment_118382473

You're assuming it's all about the US diplomatic corps? OK but I think they're as likely to have been under immediate pressure from their own diplomatic corps. What's the point of diplomatic immunity if they can be charged with crimes? Does the UK diplomatic corps want its own government setting bother precedent of pursuing and charging someone with diplomatic immunity? They'd be making a rod for their own backing they did it.

Look, judging by their behaviour, the UK was keen to get her off UK soil as quickly as they could. If the UK isn't interested in prosecuting her then there's absolutely none of the relevant bodies pushing for prosecution.

In answer to your question, I think the US would get the UK diplomat out of the country ASAP in exactly the same way the UK did. I think they would do so to maintain the precedent and protect their own diplomatic corps. I asked what you think will actually happen in this case and why. So, what do you think will actually happen and why?

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118371953#Comment_118371953

Agreed, it's not meant to. But preventing arbitrary charging of accredited foreign staff and their families at the whim of the host country is precisely why diplomatic immunity exists in the first place and thus any revocation of recognition of immunity by the host country, for any reason at all, is considered a very grave breach of diplomatic relations. It's a similar rationale to "better 100 guilty folk go free than one innocent man sent to prison." It happens that the UK is a generally honest country with a generally honest police force, but can you imagine what would happen if some less scrupulous country decided to come up with some sort of charge against a diplomat's family member to gain leverage? This is why the correct process is to expel the person and file an extradition request, which is what the UK did. I suspect that the US's refusal to grant that extradition request is also based on similar principle grounds: Nothing against the UK specifically, but not setting a precedent to allow extraditions to certain other countries.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391691#Comment_118391691

Nope, you've picked me up wrong (possibly the other person on here as well, but I can only repeat myself so many times) - not at the whim of another country. By their own actions. 'Okay, our diplomat has done something in an ally country we'd sanction a citizen of ours for if done in our own country, we're going to lift their immunity in our ally country'.

How can any diplomat feel left down or demoralised for that more some than any general government employee?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118365265#Comment_118365265

It’s normally extended to immediate family, and certainly the spouse, of someone on a diplomatic passport, because there’s a risk that their family could be used to get to blackmail / pressure someone. It’s a long standing thing in diplomatic immunity and it exists for reasons that would be more likely to surface in interaction with unfriendly countries.

Imagine you were on a diplomatic mission from say the US in China, or indeed from China in the US, and the police started harassing your wife or kids to ensure that you didn’t go looking for something. That’s precisely why they do it this way.

We also don’t know that she ran. For all you know she could have been removed quickly by the US to avoid exposing something. I mean, would you want your signals intelligence officers all over the tabloid media in England?

There are, in my view anyway, big questions to be answered about how much warning is put up about wrong side of road driving around such a base. There’s a health and safety question here that’s very significant as apparently it’s a regular occurrence, just usually not a fatal one.

If I were the Dunne family I would take a line of suing the base for civil damages for failing to provide adequate signage and training etc. At least that might drive home the issue and ensure it never happens again, or at least every effort is made to ensure it does not.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391731#Comment_118391731

You've made your point loads of times. It's not a very difficult point to understand.

The answer to your question has been given a few different ways by myself and in the post you quoted above. You don't seem to have acknowledged it so far. Maybe try forming an argumen against those poins rather than ignore them. Or maybe try repeating your question again, whichever you prefer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391858#Comment_118391858

I answered a question you asked, then you asked me to answer it the way you wanted me to answer it. I'm on holidays, but that doesn't mean I don't value my time.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391888#Comment_118391888

Well, to be fair, I asked whey you think will happen and why and I don't think you've answered that and I'm not sure you've engaged with the point about setting the precedent that diplomats can be charged with crimes at all.

Reality is that I'm discussing the situation as it is and you're discussing the situation as you would like not to be. I think it's more useful to stick to reality.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118391731#Comment_118391731

That is the correct way of doing it, and there has been precedent, but usually it's for only particularly egregious cases. For example, in 2003, Colombia waived immunity for a diplomat charged with pre-meditated murder and he stood trail in the Old Bailey. (He was later acquitted).

Another option is to be tried under the home country's laws, such was the case for a 2001 incident where a Russian diplomat was driving drunk and killed a woman. He was convicted (as a repeat offender) in a Russian court despite Canadian attempts to have him stand trial in Ottawa. A US Marine assigned to the Romanian embassy was similarly court-martialled by the US government for a traffic-related killing.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118392014#Comment_118392014

I answered both. No point repeating here.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118392250#Comment_118392250

Yes, agreed. It should only be used for relatively major incidents. Ideally in the host country, but even the Russian example has merit.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118392307#Comment_118392307

I didn't think you've said what you think will actually happen and why.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118371918#Comment_118371918

Where did I say that it's ok to drive on the wrong side of the road? Show me, I'll wait.

Bad language removed.

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118371926#Comment_118371926

That's not what I said at all. The point I'm trying to get across is that there are mitigating circumstances for Sacoolas being on the wrong side of the road. She comes from a country where they drive on the other side of the road than they do in the UK so it's much easier for her to make that kind of mistake than it is for someone like me who is from Ireland and used to driving on the left hand side of the road. I'm not saying that's open season to killing bikers, I'm just saying it's something to keep in mind when calling for her to be jailed.

BattleCorp1

If it were me, I'd want to at least apologise to the family. But I wouldn't volunteer to go to prison, nor will Anne Sacoolas. She'll only admit guilt or apologise to the family once she knows she's immune from prosecution and the UK agree to drop it. It will likely take years to sort out all the diplomatic angles and things settle down a bit. I'm just looking at it from the realistic point of view.

^^^^^^^^^^^

This. I'd agree with this 100%.

What she did was wrong, 100%, but given that she has an out (immunity or no chance she'll be extradited), she'll take it. And being honest, I think most people would do the same.

LillySV

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118404926#Comment_118404926

So it’s ok to kill someone, try and flee to another country rather than face the consequences of your actions … but just make sure you dont curse??? Your values are the same as that woman’s … go away and don’t repulse me with your nonsense

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408678#Comment_118408678

It's not a good act. Its an objectively bad act, but in this case it was legal to avoid any charge. Most people would not face an unconfirmed charge like whatever she would face (not confirmed as far as I know) if there's a perfectly legal way to not face the charge. Nobody has ever suggested she intended to harm Harry Dunn. The notion that most people would voluntarily go to the UK and potentially face a significant jail term when there's a perfect legal way to avoid it and continue to live her life at home with her family, is not realistic.

It's the kind of thing people would say on the Internet but wouldn't do in reality. She has a perfectly legal get out. Neither her government or the UK government is pressuring her to do it (and I suspect they would strongly oppose her doing it).

BattleCorp1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118408678#Comment_118408678

I never said it's ok to kill someone. Show me where I said it's ok to kill someone?

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380073#Comment_118380073

If that woman had stayed and faced the music like any person with a conscience would do, with a good lawyer she would probably have received a suspended sentence.

Maybe not even a suspended sentence, just a fine. It was only a motorcyclist she killed, after all

/s

Quantum Erasure

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2022-09-29/us-citizen-accused-of-killing-harry-dunn-appears-before-uk-court-for-first-time

Anne Sacoolas, 45, appeared before Westminster Magistrates’ Court via videolink from the United States on Thursday

At the six-minute hearing, the defendant spoke only to confirm her name and date of birth

She was granted unconditional bail by magistrates and will appear next at the the Old Bailey on 27 October, and told that she must attend in person.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119683069#Comment_119683069

Proper order. Good to see good sense has prevailed. That’s also the closest she will ever get to a prison cell.

gmisk

Tremendously sad for his family.

Zero chance she will leave the US.