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!

Gingernaut

How interesting, though, that it seems to be that it’s only when the accused is a woman and a mother that the large-scale media campaign to pressure her to give up her legal rights begins.

By accident I meant she didn’t plan to kill him or anyone else (as far as we know) she didn’t go out looking to murder him. Maybe she was speeding or drunk but that was not with the intention of killing someone.

Therefore her mindset could really be expected to be different to that of a murderer.

This could happen to any of us. It’s a risk of being a driver and never either breaking the law/ Highway Code or never taking risky manoeuvres which covers very few, if any drivers their driving lifetime

Passthecherrycoke

It happened to me once. It was late and dark, and I had been driving on dual carriageways for hours. The road changed to two way traffic and I didn’t notice for a few hundred yards. I could have killed someone. I’m not a murderer, though.

It's the same advice the UK embassy would have given one of their diplomats posted in the US.

Is it ? I very much doubt it. The UK would advise anyone to co-operate fully with any local law enforcement investigations and requirements first, I am sure.

And if not, they should. I don't want the UK to end up with a worse reputation than the US for international arrogance - especially when it would be spectacularly unhelpful generally.

@Teddybear45

"Diplomatic immunity shouldn’t apply in this situation. She murdered a child and needs to face the consequences.'

She killed a 19 year adult in a hit and run incident. To say she "murdered" a child is saying that she pre-meditated killing him. There is no suggestion this was the case.

Yes, it is appalling that she was granted diplomatic immunity for this and my heart goes out to the young man's family and friends but get your facts right.

Is it ? I very much doubt it. The UK would advise anyone to co-operate fully with any local law enforcement investigations and requirements first, I am sure.

That’s what you think should happen. You have no basis for that.

That’s what you think should happen. You have no basis for that.

Working backwards, I've never heard of a UK diplomat being recalled to the UK and the UK subsequently refusing to co-operate with an investigation. Whilst absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, until it's proven, I'll happily carry on assuming as I posted.

As if you would hear about it. Diplomats and those who get protection ( which incidentally can be given to people like drivers etc) get away with crimes in this country everyday. It’s reasonable to assume that similar happens overseas and you wouldn’t hear about it ( whether they fled or not)

As if you would hear about it. Diplomats and those who get protection ( which incidentally can be given to people like drivers etc) get away with crimes in this country everyday. It’s reasonable to assume that similar happens overseas and you wouldn’t hear about it ( whether they fled or not)

The fact we are talking about this case suggests one of us may be wrong ...

Working backwards, I've never heard of a UK diplomat being recalled to the UK and the UK subsequently refusing to co-operate with an investigation. Whilst absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, until it's proven, I'll happily carry on assuming as I posted.

I bet you’d never heard of the diplomat accused of rape whose country stood by his immunity either. It’s a ludicrous argument that, just because you haven’t heard of something happening, you’ll assume it never has because it suits your thinking. We don’t know if it’s happened, and have no reason for an assumption either way.

You’re saying you would know if a UK diplomat fled another country on the basis that you know about this case. But you can’t assume that it would make the press in the same way. All manner of things happen that the public is not aware of.

Divebar

And we know those cases don’t make the press. There’s a link posted above with multiple similar cases that I’ve never seen garner as much attention as this one.

There have been some hideous things happen on UK soil that the police have been unable to proceed with because the Embassy is unwilling to waive the immunity. The victims in these cases are sadly collateral damage in some bigger political manoeuvring that we’re never privy to. You have to hope it is for the overall good.

The U.K. would absolutely advise their diplomats to use their immunity. One less serious example is the uSe of alcohol in countries where it is illegal

Totally unrelated to this case, but this is how the US sticks two fingers up to the rest of the World where war crimes are concerned.

www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law

People cannot be so ignorant as to think the UK would and has acted any differently. The treaty is there for a reason. Accepting foreign diplomats is a risk but it's a known and acknowledged risk. No one is going to damn thing about this.

I would also do the same. My heart goes out to his family, but if that was me, knowing it was a complete, awful accident, I'd also be putting my child first and be straight on a plane back to the US.
I don't believe anyone who given the choice between 10 years in prison in a foreign country, leaving your children behind, or use a legitimate legal defense to not serve any prison time wouldn't use it.

10 years for death by dangerous driving (or whatever the charge would be) isn't likely is it?

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD

Probably not, but we don’t know the facts here.

@LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD you can get up to 14 years for death by dangerous driving, so how is 10 years not likely?
Are you a specialist in this area? (I am not)

As I've said before - my legal knowledge comes purely from TV crime shows.

There are varying levels of culpability attached to the crime. Fourteen years is the maximum, so for ten you would need to be seriously at fault. But we don’t know what happened here, really.

Would the maximum penalty be if you had, say, failed a drugs/drink test, or been racing or something like that (reckless rather than careless)?

So how can you say that it's not likely?
According to the sentencing guidelines, a minimum sentence would be 2 years, up to the maximum of 14. She also has a previous driving offence, i could hazard a guess she would get level 2 of the sentencing, which is 4-7 years.
However judges have been known to throw the book at people.
We don't know the facts of the case. And in that situation, i wouldn't risk any prison time personally.
www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-dangerous-driving/

Would the maximum penalty be if you had, say, failed a drugs/drink test, or been racing or something like that (reckless rather than careless)?

There's a whole lot of law around "dangerous", "careless" and "reckless". ("Caldwell recklessness" from my study days).

There comes a point at which "carelessness" doesn't cut it, and "reckless" takes over. At the end of the spectrum you have "dangerous" which excludes the other two.

"Dangerous" isn't "careless", nor "reckless". It's dangerous. That is behaviour so obviously dangerous there can be no other excuse for it.

It can get very complicated very quickly ... which is why we have courts and experts to deal with it.