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.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.
Using a hand-held device at the wheel is taken rather more seriously - that could get her 14 years.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?
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.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.
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.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)
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.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.
Base Immunity history.“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.
(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 ...
Blame the lawyers.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.
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.still, the bigger problem is not paying attention. j
She drove approximately a quarter of a mile on the wrong side for 26 seconds, plenty of time to react or pull over.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.
Post #4 shows the road markings at the junction, which are there to remind anyone exiting the base on which side to drive.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.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
"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.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]
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.”
by Jake Hertz
by Aaron Carman
by Aaron Carman
by Robert Keim