(MISS-)use of diplomatic immunity.!

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
What if she rigged up a makeshift adapter to plug her 120v heater into a UK outlet and burned down her apartment building and killed a person. Would that be an accident? Should charges be pressed? If so, which charges.
Would it just be lack of cultural understanding? A mistake?

She was cold and she had a heater. No different than, she had a car and wanted to get somewhere.
The equivalent electrical fire case has happened many times before where I was stationed in Asia (US appliances into the 220 power plug). Unless there was some special intent to harm they are investigated and deemed an accident with civil charges for damages.

Sometimes these types of events are intentional so they are investigated by all sides (U.S. Naval Investigative Service).
https://apnews.com/article/dd77f83c7c7dc13ba5a3d611709ca661
 

Ian0

Joined Aug 7, 2020
9,667
Do we know if she claimed to make a mistake and drive the whole way on the wrong side of the road vs checked her phone and drifted to the wrong side of the road and killed the guy?
Using a hand-held device at the wheel is taken rather more seriously - that could get her 14 years.
 

Ian0

Joined Aug 7, 2020
9,667
What if she rigged up a makeshift adapter to plug her 120v heater into a UK outlet and burned down her apartment building and killed a person. Would that be an accident? Should charges be pressed? If so, which charges.
Would it just be lack of cultural understanding? A mistake?

She was cold and she had a heater. No different than, she had a car and wanted to get somewhere.
The Health and Safety Executive would prosecute - I think it's called "gross negligence manslaughter". It's the same law that would be used to prosecute me if I sold or designed an unsafe electrical product.
(@BobTPH I'm just supplying the facts - if harboured any anti-American sentiments, I wouldn't be married to an American - its the attempt to evade justice that irks me, the nationality of the miscreant is irrelevant)
 

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
8,804
The Health and Safety Executive would prosecute - I think it's called "gross negligence manslaughter". It's the same law that would be used to prosecute me if I sold or designed an unsafe electrical product.
(@BobTPH I'm just supplying the facts - if harboured any anti-American sentiments, I wouldn't be married to an American - its the attempt to evade justice that irks me, the nationality of the miscreant is irrelevant)
This is where we disagree. I do not think this the same as designing a faulty electrical product. I think this was a momentary lapse that could happen to anyone in her situation.

I have driven in the UK on two occasions. I did find myself driving the wrong side of the road on one occasion nearly identical to hers. I had just entered the road from a parking lot via a right turn onto a road with with no traffic. Fortunately I realized my mistake quickly and righted it before encountering any other vehicles. I do not think I was being grossly negligent.

And I don’t think she should not suffer any consequences, I mentioned civil penalties in my first post. I just think calling her a criminal and making her serve a jail sentence would not have been justice. Revoking driving privileges in the UK would also be appropriate punishment.
 

panic mode

Joined Oct 10, 2011
2,715
i find that being in the wrong lane is of secondary importance at best.
driving in opposite traffic lane is not unheard of. everyone does that legally to pass slow traffic, although this is done quickly and staying in wrong lane is not something to go for.

still, the bigger problem is not paying attention. just look out, watch the speed and be prepared to stop. doing so is paramount, specially when on a not familiar road. it is even more so important when in a different country, with different traffic signs, different traffic direction and when visibility may be limited. after all road is not straight or very wide. this incident was not a result of a single mistake, it was several. the way i see it, this is a clear case of negligence and that may not normally be a criminal offense but if it involves taking someone's life, it sure should be. driving can cause severe body harm and death. all care should be taken to prevent that. an accident would be if it was a result of vehicle failure or some unforeseen medical condition or 'act of god'. but this was totally preventable.
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
The bottom line is, she committed an act of negligence causing the death of another, and evidentially evaded serving any term of punishment.
Presumably her conscience may remind her every year when 27 August rolls around. :rolleyes:
IMO this case is not about (MISS-)use of diplomatic immunity as she shouldn't have been qualified IMO for criminal diplomatic immunity to begin with. If other covered individuals on the base had committed this act they would have been required to face charges because of a previous U.S. waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction for official base personal. The waiver had a legal technical flaw that was exclusive of families to lose previous criminal diplomatic immunity so the US simply was forced by her rights as a US citizen to protect her by treaty or bi/multilateral agreement. That loophole has been fixed for that base.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-usa-dunn-idAFKCN24N1HS
“The U.S. waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction is now expressly extended to the family members of U.S. staff,” Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said in a written statement.

“... Thus ending the anomaly in the previous arrangements and permitting the criminal prosecution of the family members of those staff, should these tragic circumstances ever arise again,” Raab said.
Base Immunity history.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content...-SOS-for-Foreign-and-Commonwealth-Affairs.pdf
(g) Article 31(1) provides: “A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the
criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State…”. Article 31(2) provides: “A
diplomatic agent is not obliged to give evidence as a witness.”
(h) Article 32 provides:
LORD JUSTICE FLAUX AND MR JUSTICE SAINI
Approved Judgment
“(1) The immunity from jurisdiction of diplomatic agents
and of persons enjoying immunity under Article 37 may be
waived by the sending State.
(2) Waiver must always be express”.
“I have the honour to refer to the Embassy’s Note No 68 of 6
July 1994 requesting that the [REDACTED] American
personnel working at the Department of State’s diplomatic
communications relay facility at RAF Croughton be included on
the Diplomatic and Administrative and Technical (A&T) lists.
As a result of discussions between the Protocol Department and
the Embassy of the United States of America, I now have the
honour to propose the following: -
The Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United
States of America have discussed the status of American
personnel working at the Department of State’s diplomatic
communications relay facilities at RAF Croughton.
Of the [REDACTED] persons which it is proposed will be based
there, the Government of the United Kingdom are prepared to
accept [REDACTED] persons as members of the diplomatic
staff of the US mission with the privileges and immunities
accorded to such staff under the Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations (VCDR). However, since a large number
of non-diplomatic staff are to be based a considerable distance
from the Embassy itself, the Government of the United Kingdom
are only willing to accept the remaining [REDACTED] persons
as members of the A&T staff of the United States Embassy in
London with the privileges and immunities accorded to such
staff pursuant to the provisions of Article 37.2 of the VCDR, on
the understanding that the United States Government, by its
reply to this letter waives the immunity from criminal
jurisdiction of these employees in respect of acts performed
outside the course of their duties. Furthermore, it is a condition
of these arrangements that all the US personnel working at RAF
Croughton (diplomatic and A&T staff), will like the members of
the US mission in London, be under Your Excellency’s control
and responsibility.
This arrangement will be of indefinite duration”.
Pausing here, and putting matters neutrally at this stage, a number of broad points can
be drawn from this diplomatic correspondence (and specifically, the Exchange of
Notes):
(a) in broad terms, the US was seeking a form of indulgence from the UK by way
of permission to include a number of additional diplomatic and A&T staff at
premises away from the London Embassy as part of the US mission;
(b) that indulgence was granted in the terms of a specific offer and acceptance of
terms;
(c) in those terms, there was an express waiver of immunity from UK criminal
jurisdiction of “employees” and “staff members” in the A&T category at RAF
Croughton;
(d) there was no express reference to the position of family members of A&T staff
in the terms;
and
(e) the material correspondence refers to the VCDR and the discussions clearly took
place against the framework of that Convention and by reference to it (most
clearly in the 15 August 1995 letter ...
38. Mr Sacoolas was at the material time a member of the US Embassy’s A&T Staff based at RAF Croughton. The US Embassy had notified the FCO of Mr Sacoolas’ appointment on 5 August 2019, as required under Article 10 VCDR. LORD JUSTICE FLAUX AND MR JUSTICE SAINI Approved Judgment 39. This formal notification for VCDR purposes identified Mr Sacoolas’ diplomatic category as “C – Administrative and Technical Staff”. The notification was on FCO’s Form 1. The opening paragraph of the form stated: “This form should be used to notify the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (as required under Article 10 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961; Article 24 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 or, for international organisations, their respective legislation) of the arrival and final departure of those officials entitled to privileges and immunities, members of their families forming part of their household, and private servants. …” (emphasis in original) 40. In addition to Mr Sacoolas, Form 1 also identified Mrs Sacoolas and their children as dependants. Mr Sacoolas was designated as “Information Management Programs Officer- LAC” (“LAC” being London Annexe Croughton). There was nothing on Form 1 to indicate any waivers or limitations as regards the privileges or immunities of Mr Sacoolas or his family.
Blame the lawyers.
 
Last edited:

panic mode

Joined Oct 10, 2011
2,715
in the 90s i ended up in Germany. stayed there for a while so decided if i am going to drive here, i want to have valid locally issued drivers license and have instructions in local language. was not cheap and took some time but it was totally worth it. i was stunned that during written exam, good half of the 150 participants did not speak a lick of German and were writing tests on forms in their native language. guess who was responsible for most of the traffic accidents? yes, it was the people that did not speak the local language even though they represented a small portion of population. another thing that at a time i found bizarre is how many would live there for long time (decades) and never bother to learn the language at least to some basic level (conversational, or being able to follow the news).
 
Last edited:

BobTPH

Joined Jun 5, 2013
8,804
still, the bigger problem is not paying attention. j
But we don’t know this was the case. The motorcycle was probably not visible when she pulled into the lane. And the likely reaction on seeing each each other, as I already pointed out, would cause them to collide instead of preventing the collision as it would between two Americans or two Brits.
 

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
18,766
hi,
Clip from Wiki link I posted earlier;

Clip
Harry Dunn (born 22 March 2001),[7] a resident of Charlton near Banbury,[8] was riding his motorcycle on the B4031 road about 400 yards (370 m) from the exit of RAF Croughton on the evening of 27 August 2019, when he was struck by a car.[9] The car was driven by Anne Sacoolas, a former US spy and the wife of a CIA operative working at the United States Air Force listening station at RAF Croughton.[10][11] Police said they believed the car, a Volvo XC90, had been driven on the wrong side of the road from the base exit,[11] which Sacoolas later admitted.[12][13][14][15][16]

Sacoolas had a previous driving infraction in the US state of Virginia in 2006 for "failing to pay full time and attention".[17][18] The BBC reported that the Sacoolas family had only been in the UK for three weeks.[19]
 

ericgibbs

Joined Jan 29, 2010
18,766
hi Bob,
Mainly the distance travelled up the road from the site exit road, before the accident.
about 400 yards (370 m) from the exit

About a quarter of a mile from the site.

Other photo shots posted by members suggests it happened at the junction of the site exit.
E
 

Thread Starter

MaxHeadRoom

Joined Jul 18, 2013
28,617
But we don’t know this was the case. The motorcycle was probably not visible when she pulled into the lane. And the likely reaction on seeing each each other, as I already pointed out, would cause them to collide instead of preventing the collision as it would between two Americans or two Brits.
She drove approximately a quarter of a mile on the wrong side for 26 seconds, plenty of time to react or pull over. :(
 

Ian0

Joined Aug 7, 2020
9,667
hi Bob,
Mainly the distance travelled up the road from the site exit road, before the accident.
about 400 yards (370 m) from the exit

About a quarter of a mile from the site.

Other photo shots posted by members suggests it happened at the junction of the site exit.
E
Post #4 shows the road markings at the junction, which are there to remind anyone exiting the base on which side to drive.
 

panic mode

Joined Oct 10, 2011
2,715
hi Bob,
Mainly the distance travelled up the road from the site exit road, before the accident.
about 400 yards (370 m) from the exit

About a quarter of a mile from the site.

Other photo shots posted by members suggests it happened at the junction of the site exit.
E
yeah... the reported details are sketchy at best.

"400 yards from the exit of the base" is not clear. probably not vertically or straight out into the field. the choices are to turn left or right if they stayed on the road and the memorial is about 400m if one turns right left, after leaving the base so that seem to be the spot. i tried to find police report, photos of the vehicles after the incident, any skid marks, or place and pose of the poor Harry when found. also there is no mention of name of the passenger in the car, or how long was she in UK. clearly sounds like the women were to busy talking to each other rather than any of them noticing that they are on the wrong side of the road.
where is the forensics? what was the speed of the car and motorcycle? what was the visibility? 8PM in August should still have plenty of daylight. for a case of such importance, how about recreating accident in an animation?

in case of a car and motorcycle head on collision, rider of the motorcycle will tend to go over the car. but in 25mph zone i would not expect much damage and serious injury is probably not common, but poor Hurry clearly got the raw deal.
 
Last edited:

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,079
hi,
Clip from Wiki link I posted earlier;

Clip
Harry Dunn (born 22 March 2001),[7] a resident of Charlton near Banbury,[8] was riding his motorcycle on the B4031 road about 400 yards (370 m) from the exit of RAF Croughton on the evening of 27 August 2019, when he was struck by a car.[9] The car was driven by Anne Sacoolas, a former US spy and the wife of a CIA operative working at the United States Air Force listening station at RAF Croughton.[10][11] Police said they believed the car, a Volvo XC90, had been driven on the wrong side of the road from the base exit,[11] which Sacoolas later admitted.[12][13][14][15][16]

Sacoolas had a previous driving infraction in the US state of Virginia in 2006 for "failing to pay full time and attention".[17][18] The BBC reported that the Sacoolas family had only been in the UK for three weeks.[19]
"a former US spy and the wife of a CIA operative" Who writes that sort of inflammatory crap like they were 007 level killers? The site was a signals intelligence center for the embassy. He was a communications 'agent' electrical engineer and she was a wife with kids with a previously US government job where it's likely she met her future husband.

It doesn't really matter as the UK agreed she was qualified for full diplomatic immunity because of their legal screw-up on the waiver agreement that the USA decided to honor in this case.

https://www.wymondhamandattleboroug...er-intended-used-anne-sacoolas---ex-minister/
Due to an “Exchange of Notes” crafted between the UK and the US in 1995, administrative and technical staff at the US military base are entitled to diplomatic immunity for actions performed in the course of their professional duties under the Vienna Convention.

The immunity was granted to those staff members on a condition of a pre-waiver for actions outside the course of their duties – but as spouses were not specifically mentioned in that part of the agreement, Sacoolas was deemed to be entitled to immunity, while her husband was not.

In July 2020, then-foreign secretary Dominic Raab said the UK and US agreed to close the loophole.
Commenting on the so-called loophole which allowed the US government to assert immunity on Sacoolas’s behalf, Sir Tony said: “In 1994 the head of the legal department at the Foreign Office was a very formidable individual, and I cannot imagine the Foreign Office lawyers at the time knowingly creating a loophole of any kind.

“So if there was a loophole, it clearly was not ever intended.

“So, it could only have been relied upon if the lawyers acting for the US government sought to find a loophole and rely upon a loophole.
“We have learnt important lessons from this tragic incident, including improvements to the process around exemptions from diplomatic immunity and ensuring the US takes steps to improve road safety around RAF Croughton.”
 

Ian0

Joined Aug 7, 2020
9,667
Using Google maps to find the shrine at the site of the crash, I can tell you she turned left ignoring the fact that the junction had been made almost into a slip-road for traffic turning left, then ignored marking on the road showing the traffic direction, then ignoring a sign in English that says "Drive on the left". The vehicles met a slight bend in the road. Both vehicles would have been on the right hand side of the road.
 

Attachments

Top