To think American diplomatic immunity...

[MT2017]

...should not apply here.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-49961679

What's worse is that she was advised to leave by the American Embassy!

Many countries will waive DI when it is a matter that doesn't relate to their job. A Colombian diplomat stood trial on a murder charge near me and was found not guilty because of self-defence , for example. But the USA believes that they are God's Own Country and above any other country's laws. Including, as I have said, sexual abuse of children.

@SerendipityJane WPC Fletcher was murdered in 1984, not 1986.

Ah ! that makes sense now. I was doubting myself as I recall Mrs. T then allowed the US to use the UK for a strike against Libya subsequently, which must have been the 1986 I had in mind.

Tx for the mindjog

An of course none of our diplomats have never commited serious crimes abroad

@LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD In the UK a solicitor cannot advise someone who has admitted guilt to plead not guilty. Solicitors are officers of the court. They have an obligation to promote justice and to tell judges the truth. The legal advisor working in the American embassy in London is probably an American qualified attorney and therefore not an officer of the court, but if there is a trial in the UK there would need to be a British legal team. They cannot advise her to plead not guilty if she tells them otherwise.

Admitted guilt to who though? To the police or the solicitor? My only law knowledge comes from watching TV

"My child would be my first priority, if I am being 100% honest. I would do whatever I could to avoid leaving her without a mum for ten years, or however many I thought I would have to serve. "

But logically then you would also do your best to evade facing justice as a Brit in Britain,
if you had accidentally driven on the wrong side of the road and killed someone,
whether a teen on a motorbike,
or a baby in a pram

So the diplomatic immunity is irrelevant if you think anyone would choose to evade justice if they could.

seaweed would you hand yourself in if you accidentally killed a baby and thought you would go to jail,
but were sure you couldn't otherwise be traced as the guilty party ?

I suspect many people wouldn't, in rl.

Diplomatic immunity is part of international law,
essential to enable diplomats to be posted to dictatorships, without an independent judiciary,
maybe with barbaric penalties like flogging, beheading.

BUT
Most democratic countries will waive diplomatic immunity in other democratic countries

However, the US will only respect US laws
and even when diplomats that commit crimes that are also crimes in the US, they are rarely punished

e.g. several years ago, the husband of a US diplomat who allegedly sexually assaulted a small British child he was babysitting in the UK - was not charged or punished, just "counselled"

But logically then you would also do your best to evade facing justice as a Brit in Britain,
if you had accidentally driven on the wrong side of the road and killed someone,
whether a teen on a motorbike,
or a baby in a pram

That isn’t logical. She has immunity. Legally, she cannot commit a crime in British soil.

So no, I wouldn’t ‘do my best’ to avoid facing justice no matter what the circumstances. But I would use the valid legal defence available to me.

*on

I really do think that International Law in this area needs to addressed and new clearer guidelines should be implemented.
My heart broke for that poor family, having to deal with their loss and this on top.
I hate to say it but as other posters have mentioned this will probably quieten down after a few weeks and the diplomat's wife will face no repercussions.
Hence there is a small part of me, which wonders- should social media do its thing and help shame this women, to do the right thing?

Ultimately, the US government (their ambassador or other state department official) is responsible. They could have chosen to waive immunity.

I am an American. YANBU. What happened to that boy and his family, and the way it was handled, was shocking. While I understand the general arguments for and against diplomatic immunity, a family bereaved and deprived of their child should not have been left without closure in this way. It’s enormously disrespectful both to Harry’s memory and his family’s grief, and I am truly sorry.

@sam221, but then you would have hostile states that would arrest and try diplomats on completely trumped up/fabricated charges, and imprison them for years. How would you get a diplomat to go somewhere like Iran or North Korea in those circumstances?

I think in this case, where she should get a fair trial, immunity should be waived.

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/diplomatic-immunity-and-diplomatic-premises

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46609445

www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-12-18/HCWS1197/

She's not the only one police would like to question about serious offences.....

Solicitors are officers of the court. They have an obligation to promote justice and to tell judges the truth.

An obligation which comes before their obligation to their client ...

Not related to diplomatic immunity, but there is a flip side of the UK refusing to extradite to the states - Gark McKinnon and Lauri Love spring to mind.

Also, you won't be extradited to the US in a capital case if they don't remove the death penalty (thanks to those pesky European Human Rights). Or indeed an inhuman sentence in a US jail - there was a case a few years ago where the UK refused to extradite a suspect because conditions in US jails had been proven to be inhumane.

And I've now remember the al-Megrahi case from a few years ago where the Scottish courts released him despite US approval.

Sadly for the Dunns, they're caught in a game of international swings and roundabouts, it seems.

Horrible situation but I agree that she would have had an army of lawyers from the base/embassy advising her to go, probably also complicated by the fact her husband was in intelligence work. Take your children and leave, we’ll handle it etc. I think most people would have done so, much as we like to think we wouldn’t.

She probably feels fucking awful, probably been told not to contact Harry’s family however much she wants to.

“seaweed would you hand yourself in if you accidentally killed a baby and thought you would go to jail,
but were sure you couldn't otherwise be traced as the guilty party ?”

I agree this isn’t logical. I may be sure that I couldn’t be traced but I wouldn’t have international law behind me would I?

However comparably if I committed a crime abroad and I had the opportunity to come back to the U.K. with no extradition treaty then yes I would leave to avoid justice

You need to remember as far as we know this was an accident. This woman didn’t set out to kill this man

You need to remember as far as we know this was an accident.

Accidents have consequences.

To be fair that’s a bit of a nothing soundbite isn’t it? Those consequences are far reaching, punishment by the courts being only one element of them

No, it's not a "nothing soundbite". No more than "This woman didn’t set out to kill this man" is.

Through her actions and inattention a man died.

There is no such thing as a road traffic accident. They are Road Traffic Incidents.

You need to remember as far as we know this was an accident.

No. We know a lot more than that. What we need to remember is that the police wish to charge her with Dangerous Driving.

She followed the law and the advice of the embassy. It's the same advice the UK embassy would have given one of their diplomats posted in the US. She didn't murder a child. She made a mistake. It's tragic but pulling out of an international convention would be a massive overreaction. It would be more sensible to stop allowing people to drive here for 6 months before needing to apply for a UK license. Americans in particular won't be used to motorbikes filtering and buzzing around like they do. THAT is within the UKs power to change.