• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

UK and US agree to amend "secret" diplomatic immunity loophole after Harry Dunn's death

Fatoy

Fatoy

Member
Mar 13, 2019
7,228
As per the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-53500449

The UK and the US have agreed to amend an "anomaly" that allowed Harry Dunn death suspect Anne Sacoolas to claim diplomatic immunity.

A court hearing last month heard the "secret agreement" permitted Ms Sacoolas to return to America after the 19-year-old's death last August.

He was killed in a crash near RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It's not immediately clear what this means for Anne Sacoolas, but I can't imagine the USA would agree to the amendment if it made her open to extradition and prosecution, so presumably she won't be coming back to the UK to face trial.

For anyone not familiar with the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Dunn
 
Joni

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
It indeed doesn't matter, the United States doesn't extradite its citizens.
 
OP
OP
Fatoy

Fatoy

Member
Mar 13, 2019
7,228
This is probably the most insipid way this situation could have been resolved: a backroom handshake that will prevent the same - incredibly unlikely - situation from happening again, with no real closure or justice for Dunn's family.
 
Lowrys

Lowrys

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,398
London
What bullshit. She absolutely should not have diplomatic immunity. The reason for extending diplomatic immunity for family and so on is to avoid those people being leveraged, e.g. blackmailed, to get at the diplomat in question. It should never be used to protect someone who commits an offence like the one she is alleged to have done.
 
Lowrys

Lowrys

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,398
London
From BBC:

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the new arrangements had "closed the anomaly that led to the denial of justice in the heartbreaking case of Harry Dunn".

"The new arrangements mean it could not happen again," he said.

He said he appreciated the changes "won't bring Harry back" but hoped they may "bring some small measure of comfort" to his family.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, I'm sure that'll make them feel much better.
 
chancellor

chancellor

Member
Oct 26, 2017
141
The US and UK should never have allowed diplomatic immunity to apply here and sadly this is not retrospective. The family should be getting much more support from the UK govt in relation to bringing her back
 
supercommodore

supercommodore

Prophet of Truth
Member
Apr 13, 2020
4,193
UK
Joni said:
It indeed doesn't matter, the United States doesn't extradite its citizens.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's not true.

From Wikipedia:

From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK.[19]

and

The US embassy in London reports that, as of April 2013, 38 individuals have been extradited from the US to the UK.[20]

and

The United States has extradition treaties with more than 100 countries.[6][7][8]
 
Minky

Minky

Verified
Oct 27, 2017
481
UK
This whole thing's been yet another clear illustration of how little human life matters to people at the top. The case is open-and-shut but bureaucracy comes before justice. Disgusting.
 
16bits

16bits

Member
Apr 26, 2019
2,862
stop harboring this despicable person. she killed someone and needs to stand trial.
 
Lowrys

Lowrys

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,398
London
limerobot said:
did she not keep doing it until she killed someone?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Speaking as a UK lawyer, this would not constitute murder in the UK, on the facts we know. It would likely fall under causing death by dangerous driving, which can carry a sentence equivalent to that of manslaughter (basically speaking, accidentally killing someone).

Murder in the UK requires an intent to either kill or seriously injure someone (and death arises from that intention).
 
16bits

16bits

Member
Apr 26, 2019
2,862
Lowrys said:
Speaking as a UK lawyer, this would not constitute murder in the UK, on the facts we know. It would likely fall under causing death by dangerous driving, which can carry a sentence equivalent to that of manslaughter (basically speaking, accidentally killing someone).

Murder in the UK requires an intent to either kill or seriously injure someone (and death arises from that intention).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

so the equivalent of 3rd degree murder in some us states.

to avoid any ambiguity, lets just call her a killer who fled the country.
 

Deleted member 17092

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
20,360
So a former CIA operative is that dumb huh. How does she also not see the motorcycle and correct what side of the road she's on. Dolt.
 
HeySeuss

HeySeuss

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
8,858
Ohio
Lowrys said:
Speaking as a UK lawyer, this would not constitute murder in the UK, on the facts we know. It would likely fall under causing death by dangerous driving, which can carry a sentence equivalent to that of manslaughter (basically speaking, accidentally killing someone).

Murder in the UK requires an intent to either kill or seriously injure someone (and death arises from that intention).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have the same intent element requirement in murder charges too people use the "murderer" term very loosely. Which is really dangerous from a society standpoint when you expect things to go a certain way but you can't prove intent to kill.
 
StrangeRoboMemory

StrangeRoboMemory

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,767
Toronto, ON
electricblue said:
Why is she a murderer? She drove on the wrong side of the road
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If I were litigating the case, it's a manslaughter charge. In some case, this would be 3rd degree murder - at least in parts of the U.S. and Canada, where this attribution of murder can involve:

killing while committing a misdemeanour
killing with an extremely reckless state of mind

Some states/provinces also require there to be malice or that she understood risks and ignored them. I can't speak to her malice at the time or how these things work in the UK. I know that she killed someone in her carelessness, arrogance, and ignorance, and soon after fled instead of facing punishment or offering justice to the family. I think that says a lot about her state of mind at the time and how she feels about what she did. She's uninterested in the life that she took and refuses to make amends; per her lawyer, "Anne will not return voluntarily to the UK to face a potential jail sentence."

Anyway, I'm not a lawyer, so luckily my opinion as an internet forum person has no bearing on the case. She's a killer at the very least and should be considered an international fugitive.

Oh, and anyway, this is pretty much a derail from the point of the thread, so let's not be spend the whole thread being pedantic about this, when, in any case, the person in question is a scumbag - sorry, OP, I'll edit my original post if you like.
 
LakeEarth

LakeEarth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,177
Ontario
If anyone still questioned the notion that people in power won't ever actually be held accountable for their crimes... well here ya go.
 
OP
OP
Fatoy

Fatoy

Member
Mar 13, 2019
7,228
StrangeRoboMemory said:
Oh, and anyway, this is pretty much a derail from the point of the thread, so let's not be spend the whole thread being pedantic about this, when, in any case, the person in question is a scumbag - sorry, OP, I'll edit my original post if you like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nope, it's a totally valid discussion - don't worry. Like you said, the point of the case is that Anne Sacoolas is a criminal who has escaped justice, and the best the two governments involved can do is say "won't happen again".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.