To think diplomatic immunity should not allow you to escape a judicial process

[Northernlurker]

Was anybody else listening to PM and heard the interview with Charlotte Charles?

Her son Harry was killed in a RTA. An American was driving a car involved but has gone back to the US citing immunity. The family are broken and desperate for the judicial process to be followed. Apparently the US never waives immunity......

Harry Dunn crash: US diplomat's wife leaves UK amid police probe www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-49945461 Link from the bbc

Grrrh link

That’s what diplomatic immunity is. It wouldn’t exist if diplomats were unable to escape a judicial process.

I didn't realise that families of diplomats also benefitted from immunity.

I feel so sorry for his family and no, the US will not waive it.

YABU - that's exactly what diplomatic immunity is. they don't even have to pay parking tickets.

It's why the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher got away unpunished.

Yes, but it's fucking stretch though, isn't it? She was driving on the wrong side of the fucking road. Diplomatic immunity is there so diplomats can get on with their jobs without being fucked around by the country they are in, not so their wives can mow people down and then catch a flight out of town.

Baguetteaboutit

But the idea of it is that they aren’t really ever here. They are physically here, but as legal entities they remain under the jurisdictions of their home countries. Diplomats wouldn’t be able to bring their families otherwise.

Immunity should exist for some things but not other things. This is an example where it should not apply.

I’ve never heard of this before. So they can commit any crime?

Pretty sure you can drive over people in America either.

The American was the wife of a diplomat. Diplomats and their dependents get diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity IS being immune to any justice proceedings against you in the host country.

FWIW I think it sucks. But for some reason every country does it. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have diplomatic immunity wherever they go.
A Pakistan envoy to the UN beat up his US girlfriend and claimed it.

It’s defined in the 1961 Vienna Convention.

Totally unacceptable and the Americans are cunts to let her do this - even though she can. I thought they were all about personal responsibility.

FreshwaterBay

It’s a bilateral agreement, though. We wouldn’t be prepared as a country to send our diplomats abroad if we knew they would be vulnerable in this way.

Yes they can commit any crime and go unpunished. And if they die whilst In the UK, no-one can carry out a post mortem on them either.

Here is an educational video on how diplomatic immunity works
m.youtube.com/watch?v=uyUrMFv8p9Q

So they can commit any crime?

They can be prosecuted by their home country if they wish. The home country can waive immunity. But they are not subject to our laws. We don’t have to let them in, but once we do we are accepting them as a representative of their head of state, so it’s as if the Queen went to another country and broke one of their laws. They wouldn’t be allowed to lock her up. That’s an act of war. The principle is that a diplomat is the same.

I read about this earlier today and was horrified that this woman can just continue with her life, driving and everything, as if this never happened. Presumably no one outside her immediate family and her husband’s colleagues would even know it happened, as she hasn’t been named anywhere.

Dreadful for the poor lad’s family.

I think this is such a spineless way to act. If this death was her fault I hope she is full of shame and spends her life filled with guilt and the knowledge that those who know her will know her true worth.

“Under the United Nations' 1961 convention on diplomatic immunity, someone with diplomatic immunity can be arrested in the host country, but they can't actually be charged with a crime. Theoretically, though. they're still operating under their own country's laws. So, if they broke the law, they should be extradited back to their country to stand trial for the crime they committed in the other country. This doesn't always happen. It does sometimes, if the crime is heinous enough. But, for the most part, everybody just looks the other way.

Diplomats do still have to watch their step, though. Because their home country can waive diplomatic immunity on them, and the host country can go ahead and prosecute. Plus, if things are bad enough, the host country can declare the diplomat "persona non grata," which means that person is no longer welcome in the country and they've got a very limited amount of time to skedaddle back home.“

Diplomatic immunity exists to protect diplomats and their families from being used as pawns in dodgy countries where they might be prone to false and trumped up charges and imprisoned without trial.

Of course it stinks in a situation like this, but the need for it, and the ramifications if it didn't exist, are far in excess of the downsides.

To fine tune it would be incredibly complex, and leave loopholes that would put our own people at risk abroad. So it has to be broad and accepted by all countries.

The US takes a very clear cut approach to DI. They always invoke it regardless of the alleged crime and regardless of the role of the individual implicated. They do not distinguish between friendly, rule of law regimes and hostile authoritarian regimes.

Other Western countries, including the UK, adopt a more nuanced approach. The UK will waive diplomatic immunity where the alleged offence takes place in a country which applies the rule of law and is unrelated to the official functions of the alleged offender.

To give the US their due, they will sometimes prosecute the alleged offender in the US - with any sentence to be served in the US, and I would imagine that that is what will happen here.

@Disfordarkchocolate I agree 100% - a spineless and scummy way to behave.

Diplomatic immunity can, and damned well should, be waived if the action was not a necessary part of diplomatic duties.

If the sending nation does not do the honourable thing, all we can do is chuck the (alleged) offender out as persona non grata.

('alleged' as they have not been tried, but sometimes it's possible to know someine is a guilty bastard even without that)

I think this is such a spineless way to act. If this death was her fault I hope she is full of shame and spends her life filled with guilt and the knowledge that those who know her will know her true worth.

I doubt she had much choice in the matter. She will have been instructed by her Embassy, and if she didn’t do as they told her they might well withdraw all support and then she’d be on her own. Whatever the reality of this case, what she has done is in line with the law.

Pretty sure you can drive over people in America either.
(Think you mean can’t)

In the context of an accident, the laws here in the US are much more lenient. Most she would be charged with is involuntary manslaughter. Probably would not be convicted as would have to prove criminal negligence or deliberate recklessness. So, driving intoxicated or speeding excessively. In the context of an American mistakenly pulling out into the wrong lane in a foreign country where people drive in the opposite lanes...no jury in US would convict her.

I lost a friend killed going home from work by a car that knocked her off her bike. The killer did not even get a ticket or fine. Never arrested, never charged.

Sucks but true.