world

UK charges U.S. diplomat's wife over teen's death in crash

102 Comments
By JILL LAWLESS

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.


102 Comments
Login to comment

Scoolas killed that young man. She should go back to the UK to face justice. Coward.

28 ( +29 / -1 )

This is the first I have heard about this cases, I always feel for those that have had terrible things happen only to find out "diplomats" are involved...….

Sounds like the woman who caused the accident & death is possibly STRETCHING what most would consider diplomatic immunity, she should man up & fly to the UK to face her music.

But like many who are able to get away with it, because of immunity I suspect she will stay home in the US

19 ( +19 / -0 )

Good. She should go back to the UK and be tried.

She should have stayed, so I'm glad she will be charged. I also hope that the United Kingdom know that Americans support their decision.

18 ( +20 / -2 )

She should go back to the UK and be tried

I agree.

Is she being protected by Trump and his admin?

Trump, like all despots and despot wannabes, says:

For my friends (i.e. fellow Republicans, those in the establishment who pay me millions, my family and members of my syndicate) everything; for my enemies (e.g. the Bidens and others he wants 'locked up') the law.

Trump and his fellow 'elite' (so called) have long assumed 'laws are for peasants' ( oh my hee hee) and others who can't afford to pay high priced armies of lawyers, accountants and fixers to protect them. The 'elite' can.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Coward!

19 ( +20 / -1 )

Pointless. She’ll never set foot in the UK again.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

No BusinessToday 08:02 am JST

Pointless. She’ll never set foot in the UK again.

If Interpol "red flag" her, she will probably never be able to leave the US.

Gary

16 ( +16 / -0 )

All these people saying she should go back. I'll bet dollars to cents that, if they were in that position, they would never set foot in the UK again. Go back to go to prison - for what purpose? It won't bring the victim back. Punishment? It was an accident. Easy to say she's a coward. Imagine you had an accident in a country other than your own, because of your mistake. You would really leave your home and family to face a prison term in that country? I doubt it.

-19 ( +6 / -25 )

The decent thing to do, but already I smell an odoriferous quid pro quo emanating from Latinist Bojo who well understands the kinda deals ole Donnie loves to do. Assange, anybody?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Hit and run... People don’t flee like this when it’s just an ‘accident’. She must know she’s guilty of a crime. Otherwise she would want to help clear up the trams suffered by this young man’s family.

14 ( +14 / -0 )

Just a taste of the diplomatic triumphs to come once the UK is free of the shackles of Europe...

Watch the mighty lion roar all on its own!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I wonder if it will ever come out, one way or the other, if consumption of alcohol figured in the accident. Reading between the lines, it explains the American woman's reluctance to avoid a detailed inquiry.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

An American diplomat's wife

Jonathan Sacoolas isn't a diplomat, he's an NSA spy.

Sacoolas claimed diplomatic immunity and left Britain after the crash.

Her husband isn't a diplomat and doesn't have diplomatic immunity. He's an NSA official spying on British people in Britain.

But the U.S. State Department said Friday that “at the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the driver in this case had status that conferred diplomatic immunities."

Not under the Vienna Convention. The NSA and GCHQ have a secret agreement whereby they spy on each other's population and award themselves freedom from prosecution in cases like this.

21 ( +22 / -1 )

She needs to own what she did.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Good! If she doesn't show up for trial then convict her and place her on international wanted list. She will be arrested in other country that she tries to enter.

For many Americans, not traveling abroad ever is no big deal, but it will cause problem for her husband's career in the government and family trips abroad will be awkward forever.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

Alfie's right, it's propaganda/fake news to call her husband a diplomat. Diplomats do diplomacy, all that guy has done is spying for his employer, the CIA.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Punishment? It was an accident.

This wasn’t some innocent mistake, she is being charged with dangerous driving causing death. Are you seriously arguing that people whose dangerous driving kills people shouldn’t be punished for that??

19 ( +21 / -2 )

Sacoolas, whose husband was an intelligence officer

Not exactly a diplomat. Why does he and his wife get diplomatic immunity? Speaking of which...

Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, families of diplomats are granted immunity from arrest or detention

What's up with that, anyway? So, if Anne Sacoolas shot a pregnant woman in broad daylight in front of a crowd and there were pictures and videos of her with the gun in her hand, she would have diplomatic immunity?

Dunn's parents' trip to see Trump in the White House in October sparked controversy when it emerged that Sacoolas was in the room next door, ready to meet them in front of journalists. They refused the offer.

They should have accepted that offer.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

They should have accepted that offer.

It was a complete surprise - they had no warning or earlier query as to whether they would be willing to meet her. Trump ambushed grieving parents - utterly disgraceful and they were right to refuse to meet the fugitive.

22 ( +22 / -0 )

They should have accepted that offer.

No, I think the parents of a dead child have the right to refuse an offer to meet the person who killed their kid even if their refusal spoils a photo op for a politician.

26 ( +27 / -1 )

So, if Anne Sacoolas shot a pregnant woman in broad daylight in front of a crowd and there were pictures and videos of her with the gun in her hand, she would have diplomatic immunity?

Immunity from being charged with a crime already committed. You're beginning to grasp the concept of what the word "immunity" means in the phrase "diplomatic immunity". But that immunity does not mean a person in the situation you describe wouldn't be taken into custody. They would also risk being shot on the spot if they were considered a danger to others.

They should have accepted that offer.

More of an ambush. They were not given fair warning that the "offer" was going to be made. It's actually commendable that (probably based on sound advice from their lawyer) they didn't allow themselves to be galloped into what could well have turned into a cheap and characteristically revolting Donald Trump publicity stunt. They'd likely have regretted it for a long time to come, and sooner rather than later, have felt like they'd just sold out their own son.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

The decent thing to do, but already I smell an odoriferous quid pro quo emanating from Latinist Bojo who well understands the kinda deals ole Donnie loves to do. Assange, anybody?

Oh shut it already.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

So US intelligence officer Jonathan Sacoolas does not have diplomatic immunity.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Her husband isn't a diplomat and doesn't have diplomatic immunity

LOL, regardless if what his actual job is, he is part of the diplomatic corp and has immunity. He also appears to be senior enough so that his family also has immunity. ALL CONFIRNED, unlike your expert assumptions ;-).

She has been in the country 3 weeks, she drove on the wrong side of the road, submitted herself for interview with police and told them exactly what happened. They didn't do anything, and I suspect they might have even advised her of her cirmcumstance.

British authority has not revoked her immunity, instead playing with semantics about timing and location and inferring about immunity. US authority has not rescinded her immunity. These are the facts.

Wow, just wow...give a man a keyboard.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

I guess Trump will try to get Mrs. Sacoolas to speak at a private Trump fundraiser like the military personnel convicted of war crimes and then later pardon by Trump for another publicity stunt.

Donald 'Swamp Thing' Trump is right at home in Florida!

8 ( +10 / -2 )

She should go back to the UK and be tried

...is a moral decision, not a legal one. She was willing to face the family in person in USA, they denied the offer. Says everything about their motive...

-19 ( +1 / -20 )

"Jonathan Sacoolas does not have, and has never had, any entitlement to diplomatic immunity in international law. Sacoolas works as an NSA technical officer at the communications interceptions post at “RAF Croughton”. His role is support to the interception of communications from British citizens. As I explained in Murder in Samarkand, the NSA and GCHQ share all intelligence reports, but each faces legal constraints on mass spying on its own citizens. So the NSA has staff here fronting the spying on British citizens, while GCHQ has staff in the US fronting the spying on US citizens, and the polite fiction is that the results are transmitted back over the Atlantic to the US or UK respectively, before being “shared” with the partner intelligence agency."

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/jonathan-sacoolas-is-not-and-has-never-been-a-diplomat/

Anne Sacoolas should also be charged with lying to the police and obstruction of justice.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Oh so now liberals want to claim “spying” happens. When we said GCHQ might have helped the previous US administration spy on US citizens in a political campaign it was “conspiracy theory, no way this could happen!”

if the person has documents then they should be protected. Otherwise documents mean nothing anywhere. I feel for the parents they should be able to get some other type of justice that immunity doesn’t prevent.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Just so casually and, without evidence.

yeo he’s a spy, both countries agree to do it to each other, no immunity, let’s extradite this woman right now.

Oh and don’t forget to make up speculation that Trump had something to do with it and that he supports what she has done, without evidence.

So casually when it fits the narrative. if something doesn’t- just scream “conspiracy theory!!” and make the media make it go away.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Says everything about their motive...

Like seeing the person who killed their child brought to justice? Uh, yeah I guess it does.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Anne Sacoolas has already admitted the responsibility of killing the teenager in a motor vehicle accident. But falsely claimed diplomatic immunity.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

There is no Jonathan Sacoolas on the official Diplomatic list. Neither Sacoolas nor his wife has any right to claim diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/foreign-embassies-in-the-uk

7 ( +7 / -0 )

There is no Jonathan Sacoolas on the official Diplomatic list

Jonathan Sacoolas worked at EAF Croughton. He might not be part of a diplomatic mission, but where he worked entitles him to be part of the diplomatic corp.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/07/harry-dunn-crash-pm-to-raise-anne-sacoolas-case-with-white-house

The Croughton airbase acts as a joint intelligence analysis centre. In early 1994 the US and UK governments struck a deal that all those working in RAF Croughton including their families would have diplomatic protection

The Vienna convention has provisions for 'annex' of diplomatic mission to be a part of a diplomatic corp.

All the facts has been widely reported everywhere. The family knows the facts also and is now pursuing a PR campaign instead. Yet conspiracy theorists are still out there regurgitating debunked assertions.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

The family knows the facts also and is now pursuing a PR campaign instead. Yet conspiracy theorists are still out there regurgitating debunked assertions.

Not a conspiracy: This person killed their child. But oh my god yes, lets make the killer the victim in all of this because she is getting bad PR.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

This person killed their child. But oh my god yes, lets make the killer the victim in all of this because she is getting bad PR

No one ever disputed the fact Harry was killed, and no one wants to make Ann Sacoolas the victim here. I've got nothing against the PR campaign either, it's the Dunn family's only option. But I was surprised, very surprised they didn't take up the option to confront Ann Sacoolas face to face, to me it's more justice than most court trial would offer.

Not a conspiracy

I was referring to the no immunity, NSA spy posts. They have all been debunked by authorities on both sides of the pond.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Consideration should be seriously given to making all of the staff of establishments like RAF Croughton fall back on the Visiting Forces Act and, failing this, at the very least to calling their ‘diplomatic immunity’ something else; for example, ‘special immunity’.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Let's be clear here, everyone, me included would be devastated if something happened to our child. It'd turn my whole world upside down.

What we're discussing here though is how to best balance the legal aspect against the moral and ethical aspect of the circumstances. There is no need to intruduce false facts and conspiracy to the discussion, especially if they have been debunked. It would not help the Dunn family, nor would it go in any way towards moral and ethical restitution.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Who cares if she has diplomatic immunity? Immunity is provided to allow such individuals to carry out their work without fear of arrest on politically motivated trumped up charges. It is not provided so their wives can commit crimes without facing the consequences.

Anyway, as the US State Department has confirmed, having fled the UK she no longer has immunity and is now fair game for extradition and international arrest warrants. Thus, everything is accordance with the law.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

 But I was surprised, very surprised they didn't take up the option to confront Ann Sacoolas face to face, to me it's more justice than most court trial would offer.

You mean make a big scene in front of the media by confronting? Now that would be dumb.Fake American crocodile tears aren't required.Owning up to what you did is the right thing to do,come what may.The max sentence is 14 years,but she'd probably get 3 at the most,if at all.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

I read that her two young sons were in the car when it happened.Messed them up no doubt,but what example is she setting as a parent with her behavior? Get yo @ss back to the UK woman.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I do not understand the immunity aspect on that special case but if it applies, the minimum would be that she goes at least under trial in USA for that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Trump also appeared to be giving excuses for Sacoolas, saying American drivers often get confused because motorists in Britain drive on the left side of the road.

Trump could not have made a dumber comment. But at least he refrained from saying 'the wrong side of the road'.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I read that her two young sons were in the car when it happened.Messed them up no doubt

Not nearly as much as growing up without their mother would.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

But I was surprised, very surprised they didn't take up the option to confront Ann Sacoolas face to face, to me it's more justice than most court trial would offer.

I'm not surprised. I wouldn't have taken the offer up either in their shoes especially given that it was a surprise sprung on them like a cheap TV show. And how is meeting your child's killer "justice"?

Regarding trial in the UK, Sacoolas would almost certainly have been found guilty, but the extenuating circumstances (it was basically an error) would mean that it would be highly unlikely that she would have faced a prison sentence. It would have been a suspended sentence and a UK driving ban.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

may.The max sentence is 14 years,but she'd probably get 3 at the most,if at all.

Almost certainly a suspended sentence. E.g.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/west-midlands/news/motorist-handed-suspended-sentence-causing-death-careless-driving-b4114

A man has been handed a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, at Warwick Crown Court after he pleaded guilty to causing the death of Stuart Wilson by careless driving.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

They should have accepted that offer.

No, I think the parents of a dead child have the right to refuse an offer to meet the person who killed their kid even if their refusal spoils a photo op for a politician.

All right, on second thought, I think the offer should have been made to meet in private / without the presence of journalists, and the parents should have accepted that offer. After all, the parents want Sacoolas to return to the UK to face British justice, this would have been a good opportunity to talk with her directly and try to convince her to do so.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Sacoolas's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, said her client had co-operated fully with the investigation

Running away and hiding in the US is cooperating fully??

She was willing to face the family in person in USA, they denied the offer. Says everything about their motive..

She isn't willing to face the family in the UK, or to stand up and face the legal music. That says everything about her motive.

She'd been in the UK only a short time, she wasn't used to driving on what Trump calls 'opposite' roads, she drove out of the air base on the wrong side of the road and hit the motorcycle of Harry Dunn. So far, it was a terrible accident, perhaps compounded by some lack of care on her part, but an accident all the same.

Then she claimed diplomatic immunity and scooted off back the the US on a US Air Force plane. That's when an accident became a deliberate attempt, by her and the US authorities, to evade the law.

As often happens, it isn't the deed that's the problem so much as the attempts afterwards to cover up the deed. Running away is way worse than a genuine accident.

Invalid CSRF

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Not nearly as much as growing up without their mother would.

Your point being? Just let it slide as a terrible,unfortunate accident? One would have to be an American to be espousing that tripe.Now if it had happened to your family member...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Let me get this straight. The idea of justice here is that the woman is dragged away from her 2 children to face a long trial in the UK, after which she will most likely be free to go home again. The bicyclist is still dead, and two kids have been traumatized. And the benefit is? I seem to be missing that point.

With all the horrible crimes talking place in the UK these days, this is what the government is focused on? Making sure a housewife submits herself to a bureaucratic process that will help nobody, and hurt some people?

Not to minimize the pain that the parents feel, but I think the posters here should ask themselves why they are so worked up about this particular case.

Is it because her husband is a spy? Why not channel your energies on the brave journalist slowly being murdered in a British prison for publishing the truth about the US/UK spy apparatus?

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Your point being? Just let it slide as a terrible,unfortunate accident? One would have to be an American to be espousing that tripe.

Yes, it was an accident. I would think coming back to face justice is the "right" thing, but I understand why she wouldn't. I also notice the UK press is playing this up for all the tears and sympathy they can. Most people who follow the UK news are being manipulated. What exactly is your point?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@Commanteer, if this scenario happened in the US on national soil and she ran from the scene it carries a harsher penalty of "Hit and Run" than if she stayed at the scene and gave herself up to law enforcement and gave details to the cause of the accident.

There is no "American exceptionalism" here. It's as simple as having integrity or not. You're advocating for hypocrisy again, because you KNOW you'd be on the opposite side of the fence if a British national did the same thing on US soil then ran back to the UK you'd be screaming for justice yourself.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

if this scenario happened in the US on national soil and she ran from the scene it carries a harsher penalty of "Hit and Run" than if she stayed at the scene and gave herself up to law enforcement and gave details to the cause of the accident.

It was not a hit-and-run, as far as I can see. She stayed at the scene. "Sacoolas had cooperated with police at the scene of the crash and was breathalysed. She was interviewed the next day at home and cooperated."

Yet UK news headlines all call it hit-and-run. Why do you suppose they lie about that? To get people worked up? Why? Ask yourself that.

If it happened in the US, I would be asking the same questions.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Let me get this straight. The idea of justice here is that the woman is dragged away from her 2 children

Tell that to Mrs Dunn

to face a long trial in the UK

For a traffic accident? No. She would have maybe an hour waiting in a back room for ten minutes before a magistrate who would find her guilty of dangerous driving, the penalty for which is ;

Disqualified from driving for one year

A fine of up to £5000 or a six months prison sentence

Three to eleven penalty points (Except she doesn't have a valid UK license, so nothing to deduct points from)

The offender may be required to retake the driving test (This should perhaps be mandatory for all drivers coming from places that have 'opposite' roads)

Serious offences may result in a prison sentence of up to two years or an unlimited fine ('Serious' means she was DUI, and/or speeding excessively, or had a history of bad driving or previous convictions for DUI)

Sentences of community service may also be applied in England and Wales

These sentences, fines and penalty points may be reduced if there are special reasons or mitigating factors

http://www.nopenaltypoints.co.uk/careless-dangerous-driving-fines.html

Running away after assuring police that she would not live the country might add to the seriousness of the penalty, of course.

Which is only right.

It was not a hit-and-run, as far as I can see

She ran when she was told that Harry Dunn had died of his injuries.

Invalid CSRF

8 ( +8 / -0 )

It was not a hit-and-run, as far as I can see

She ran when she was told that Harry Dunn had died of his injuries.

That's not the definition of hit-and-run.

Again, I might agree that it would have been a cut and dry trial. But she was told she had immunity. Whatever the faux virtuous people here may say, they all would have happily accepted diplomatic immunity if it were offered to them. I would. You would. It's common sense.

Now that the whole case has been blown up in the press, and she is public enemy #1, I doubt she can expect a fair trial. Really, this is all a distraction for the plebs. The UK government doesn't give 2 squats about a working class family like this normally.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Also interesting that it took the ambulance 43 minutes to show up. Perhaps that's part of what they are trying to distract from.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

The only victims are Harry Dunn and his family.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Put an Interpol red notice on her as she is a fugitive.

She won’t be able to go anywhere.

Invalid CSFR

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Americans at RAF Croughton are spying on British citizens on behalf of the British government. In return the Brits at GCHQ are spying on American citizens on behalf of the American government.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Who cares if she has diplomatic immunity?

Do you want 'legal' justice or not? Immunity is an integral part of the kegal framework. I'm guessing not going by further rants quoted below.

Immunity is provided to allow such individuals to carry out their work without fear of arrest on politically motivated trumped up charges. It is not provided so their wives can commit crimes without facing the consequences.

NO, immunity is an agreed convention recognising that some people have no choice but to work on foreign territories with different laws etc. Their immediate families are even less equipped to deal with adversities of foreign soil.

US State Department has confirmed, having fled the UK she no longer has immunity

This is what the UK Foreign office said, not US, in any case immunity was available to her at the time of the offense. Of course she no longer has immunity, she is back on home soil. Semantics, irrelevant, but if it helps...sure.

and is now fair game for extradition and international arrest warrants. Thus, everything is accordance with the law.

LOL, then issue an arrest warrant via Interpol. Do you see the UK FO revoking her immunity, or USA rescinding her immunity? NO.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

accident all the same.

accident =/= offense, but I accept, you may have intended to convey 'incident'.

Then she claimed diplomatic immunity and scooted off back the the US on a US Air Force plane. That's when an accident became a deliberate attempt, by her and the US authorities, to evade the law.

No, per your description, she is applying the law, to the letter, no evading that I can see.

She 'might' have evaded her moral duty to face the family, but then she made up for it by offering to do so in her home country.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

So sad this thread is full of mob justice rather than legal or moral justice.

I personally don't think Anne Sacoolas set out to commit an offense, in such a way that would prompt authorities on either side of the pond to deny her immunity, and they haven't.

She has even reached out to the Dunn family offering to face them in person. To me this is much more sincere and direct than to face a trial prosecutor.

Assuming the legal process convicts her, it isn't going to bring back Harry. So it all ends up being retribution dished out by third parties. No answers, no personal interactions, just punish a woman for a mistake. I can't see how that would build a strong justice system legal or moral.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

Anne Sacoolas killed the teenager Harry Dunn by driving on the wrong side of the road which is a crime in itself regardless of whether she was normally from a right side driving country. She caused the death of Harry Dunn by dangerous driving and the Crown Prosecutors have decided to charge her in her absence and seek her extradition.

She owns what she did, just as any other person committing the same offense would.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

I personally don't think Anne Sacoolas set out to commit an offense

No one has suggested she did. It was a traffic accident.

She has even reached out to the Dunn family offering to face them in person

On her side of the pond. They can come to her and she will deign to meet them? Big of her.

this is much more sincere and direct than to face a trial prosecutor.

In the UK you do not 'face a trial prosecutor' for a motoring offence. You go up before a magistrate, own up that you made a mistake and are very sorry, and get a virtual slap on the wrist.

If genuine traffic accidents turn ordinary people into convicts, it's no wonder the US has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world.

Invalid CSRF

9 ( +10 / -1 )

So basically, if she had STAYED in the UK and OWNED UP to the issue, it would have been much easier to resolve and she probably would have gotten a much lighter sentencing. People who own what they've done wrong get a lot more respect than those who say, "I'll stay for the case" and then leave the country which shows they can't be held to the word. Honesty is the best policy, and she lied making the entire situation much worse.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Sh1mon M4sada feels sorry for Sacoolas, the woman who killed someone and ran away:

just punish a woman for a mistake.

She didn't put too much salt in the stew, she killed a young man. That is a crime, and in case you haven't heard, when a crime is committed, the criminal should face justice. Not hide and then pretend* *she is a victim of injustice.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Let me get this straight. The idea of justice here is that the woman is dragged away from her 2 children to face a long trial in the UK, after which she will most likely be free to go home again. The bicyclist is still dead, and two kids have been traumatized. And the benefit is? I seem to be missing that point.

Oh my god, you are so right. I hadn’t realized how inconvenient this would be for the accused killer. Yes, by all means, lets now make it a principle of the justice system that defendants are totally excused from being subject to it whenever they have better things to be doing.

I mean this would be especially fair in this case since she still has kids to go home to, unlike the parents of the kid she killed and it is very insensitive of them not to consider that fact.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Not to minimize the pain that the parents feel...

Whenever someone says that kind of line,you know they are minimizing.
11 ( +11 / -0 )

For a traffic accident? No. She would have maybe an hour waiting in a back room for ten minutes before a magistrate who would find her guilty of dangerous driving, the penalty for which is ;

Cleo, she was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. This is a far more serious offense than basic dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. The US equivalent is vehicular manslaughter.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Cleo, she was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. This is a far more serious offense than basic dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. The US equivalent is vehicular manslaughter.

But in reality she wouldn't have been imprisoned - the sentence works have been suspended and she works have received a UK driving ban for a few years.

The US government is entirely free to rescind her diplomatic immunity in this case, but it won't because of Trump. It should have to allow her to face justice. Diplomatic immunity is there to protect diplomats from a foreign government abusing its power and locking up diplomats for political purposes, not to give people complete immunity from justice.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

Assuming the legal process convicts her, it isn't going to bring back Harry. So it all ends up being retribution dished out by third parties. No answers, no personal interactions, just punish a woman for a mistake.

If I ever run someone over and kill them, I'll read this out as part of my defence. Would this get you a not guilty verdict in the USA?

11 ( +11 / -0 )

Assuming the legal process convicts her, it isn't going to bring back Harry. So it all ends up being retribution dished out by third parties. No answers, no personal interactions, just punish a woman for a mistake.

Yup, absolutely. The criminal justice system absolutely should not be about dishing out punishment. It should totally just be about providing opportunities for personal interactions.

That will work great, I cannot see any potential downside whatsoever to that. So perfect.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Easy to say she's a coward. Imagine you had an accident in a country other than your own, because of your mistake. You would really leave your home and family to face a prison term in that country? I doubt it.

well ok then so if a British Diplomat accidental kills a US citizen and flees back to the UK the US really have no excuse or reason to apply for extradition. Thanks America youve now just given the UK a free get out of jail free card they'll remember it for sure.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Yup, absolutely. The criminal justice system absolutely should not be about dishing out punishment. It should totally just be about providing opportunities for personal interactions.

That will work great, I cannot see any potential downside whatsoever to that. So perfect.

Some of that sarcasm dropped on my floor!

8 ( +8 / -0 )

If I ever run someone over and kill them, I'll read this out as part of my defence. Would this get you a not guilty verdict in the USA?

If you are talking about traffic offense, no culpability, unintentional harm, then you most likely would not get a custodial sentence, in most parts of the world. Britons have been known to cross onto the wrong side of the road going between Thailand/Cambodia before the rules were tightened to disallowed it, and tourists driving in NZ causing accidents are often fined or even let go with no offense recorded.

If you are talking about diplomatic immunity overall, how the US, UK apply the laws to diplomat, then I think the official response from the relevant authorities speaks for themselves, ie so far, both sides of the pond retained her immunity at the time of the offense.

If you are looking at how the immunity system is applied generally, I don't think you can say Mrs Sacoolas has received any special treatment. For comparison, the UK, has been lenient even in wilful cases like the Anil Verma (Indian diplomat wife beater, multiple occasions, serious injury) case where he was allowed to leave and take up another posting elsewhere. He wasn't even charged.

There is an old story about a Spanish diplomat (Mendoza?) who tried to overthrow the English monarchy (queen Elizabeth I), but got immunity.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

she lied making the entire situation much worse.

This has been clarified. She was advised (possibly organized) to leave so as not to bring attention to the nature of husband's job.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

On her side of the pond

They were separated by a wall at the Whitehouse, ie they were already willing guest at the Whitehouse.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

In Britain people do go to prison for vehicular manslaughter but not in every case.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

they were already willing guest at the Whitehouse.

They were ambushed by the American side. They had gone there to ask for justice for their son, but instead an attempt was made to make them meet the woman who killed their son. Insensitive, unacceptable, contemptible behaviour on the part of whoever thought that was a good idea and those who agreed to try and persuade these grieving parents to do something they didn't want to do. Trying to turn a sincere visit by the grief-stricken, into a photo-op to support the killer.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

In Britain people do go to prison for vehicular manslaughter but not in every case.

Same has in the US.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Is this mob justice thread still going on? I'm surprised nobody has yet said "Burn the witch!"

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

 she was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. This is a far more serious offense than basic dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. The US equivalent is vehicular manslaughter.

To get a custodial sentence she would have to have deliberately aimed her car at the motorbike, been drunk and/or high, and/or been driving a vehicle she knew to be unfit for the road.

None of those circumstances applied in her case, and if she hadn’t run off she would have been dealt with lightly, probably loss of driving privileges and a fine.

If they do manage to get her back to the UK to face justice, she will likely have the book thrown at her.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Is this mob justice thread still going on?

Don't be hysterical. It is not "mob justice" to criticise someone who has run away to avoid facing a court of law for killing someone.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Don't be hysterical. It is not "mob justice" to criticise someone who has run away to avoid facing a court of law for killing someone.

Spot on.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Some very highly skilled international living room lawyers here.

I have to agree with Maria. That was the real crime. Unfortunate young Harry Dunn's life was cut short.

Had he benn driving a car the outcome would have been different I am sure. Everytime I ride one my motorcyle or scooters I know the risk it might be my last. My second thought is. I wonder if my Aflac life insurance payment got made.

As far as her running. Take away all the status and media coverage and immunity. Running implies guilt in my book. Young mans dead. Someone has to pay for that. Doesn't matter what side of pond it happened on. Britain has fair rules and laws and I trust Brits to do the right thing in this case.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Is this mob justice thread still going on? I'm surprised nobody has yet said "Burn the witch!"

Could be from the month of Trump.

This isn't mob justice - this is asking a suspect to submit herself to the justice system. Not sure how you could confuse this.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Could be from the month of Trump.

I wasn't aware there was a Trump month. Seems a bit much, even George Washington only gets a day, and he has to share it.

This isn't mob justice - this is asking a suspect to submit herself to the justice system. 

She's not a suspect, because there is nothing to suspect. She and the police agree on what happened - she admitted it. There is no question about it, nothing to resolve. (Well, perhaps a civil suit - which would be the normal course. I don't think diplomatic immunity applies there.) 100s of innocent victims have been murdered in the UK this year, with many of the suspects still free. Funny that people get outraged about this case.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

What I don't like here in this case is if Sacoolas wasn't married to an intelligence officer, but a clerk, she would not have diplomatic immunity. Ridiculous.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

She's not a suspect, because there is nothing to suspect.

In England you are a suspect, then a defendant, then finally either guilty or not guilty.

100s of innocent victims have been murdered in the UK this year, with many of the suspects still free. Funny that people get outraged about this case.

Because none of the other perpetrators are hiding behind diplomatic immunity to evade justice. And also because the US government has not rescinded her diplomatic status to allow justice to occur.

I'm sure if this was the other way round, I wonder whether you would take the same view - i.e. the Brit could swan back to Britain and leave a dead man and grieving parents behind in the USA. I suspect not.

I think you are more motivated by national loyalties than anything else. English law should not apply to an all American woman, who was doing nothing more than driving on the correct side of the road, particularly if it would inconvenience her.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

I'm sure if this was the other way round, I wonder whether you would take the same view - i.e. the Brit could swan back to Britain and leave a dead man and grieving parents behind in the USA. I suspect not. I think you are more motivated by national loyalties than anything else.

Yes, it's fairly clear we've got a sherman sticking up for another sherman, unfortunately it's one who killed a teenager and ran away.

Britain actually waived diplomatic immunity in a domestic violence case last year:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/19/husband-british-un-diplomat-arrested-accusations-domestic-viole

3 ( +4 / -1 )

In England you are a suspect, then a defendant, then finally either guilty or not guilty.

Oddly enough, it’s the same in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, and the US. At least that’s what we learned in law school.

Yes, it's fairly clear we've got a sherman sticking up for another sherman, unfortunately it's one who killed a teenager and ran away. No idea why the other guy is so hot for this story as he's Australian.

What’s a Sherman?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Their is no legal or moral reason, for this woman not to be tried, she will be issue a Red Notice from Interpol, she can be seize or taken into custody anytime she exit the US, Google Red Notice

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"The parents of Harry Dunn have been given a personal assurance by the home secretary, Priti Patel, that extradition proceedings against Ann Sacoolas, the American charged with the death of the 19-year-old, will be influenced only by the law, and not politics."

"The Crown Prosecution Service announced on Friday that it had given Northamptonshire police permission to charge Sacoolas with causing death by dangerous driving, an offence that can carry a maximum 14 year sentence."

"Sacoolas, in a statement issued by her lawyers on Friday, expressed remorse at causing Dunn’s death, but said she would not return to any criminal proceedings in the UK, citing among other things the potential length of her sentence."

The lawyer said: “This was an accident, and a criminal prosecution with a potential penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment is simply not a proportionate response.”

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sacoolas's lawyer, Amy Jeffress, said her client had co-operated fully with the investigation but "will not return voluntarily to the United Kingdom to face a potential jail sentence for what was a terrible but unintentional accident.”

I do not get this. Isn´t every accident unintentional? If it was intentional, it would be murder, not an accident. This comes from a lawyer?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It's called a lack of conscience, or in other words a having a sense of right from wrong, principles, ethics, integrity, and honesty. Perhaps entirely missing in some persons through their upbringing, education, and environment.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Anne Sacoolas. claimed she had diplomatic immunity.

she did not. and lied , two of the English government MPs are guilty of lying,

Boris Johnson and Raab, both knew she had no diplomatic immunity.

She should be returned to the UK to stand trial on man slaughter charges.

Trump is guilty of lying also by telling the Dunns Sacoolas had immunity.

when he knew she had not. If Trump wants to cause a rift with the UK. over the American woman's carelessness, Thats up to him. but the people in the UK will not let this go. she has to stand trial.

If America fail to return her for trial then the people in the UK will refuse to be an ally to America.

And the UK should sever all diplomatic ties with America.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Anne Sacoolas did not have immunity. neither did her husband.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"month of Trump", obviously a typo or one of those new-fangled predictive text slip-ups, is meant to read "mouth of Trump".

Ugh. And now I can visualise it - that horrid pursed-up little cat's bum he uses to emit fetid hot air.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ugh. And now I can visualise it - that horrid pursed-up little cat's bum he uses to emit fetid hot air.

My cat has a lovely little bum. Really cute, nothing like the the caldera spewing under his nose.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You're quite right, Cleo. My apologies to all cats and their backsides.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Numan:

I guess Trump will try to get Mrs. Sacoolas to speak at a private Trump fundraiser like the military personnel convicted of war crimes and then later pardon by Trump for another publicity stunt.

Another prediction? Well, I predict your prediction will not happen. So can you give us a timeline please? As you know predictions are a great realiy check. Wrong prediction = clueless

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Confronting Ann who was next door wouldn’t have done anything but close the case without justice being served.

What good would sobbing in front of Ann or screaming at her do? And why didn’t they inform the family of this?

Ann should not have been allowed to leave the country.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Frank Hocking:

If America fail to return her for trial then the people in the UK will refuse to be an ally to America.

And the UK should sever all diplomatic ties with America.

Err... would that not hurt the UK more than the US?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites