I'm also highly suspicious that foreign diplomatic treaties and agreements fall under the auspices of the UK courts after ratification. This whole fiasco isn't helping anything, and certainly isn't improving trade prospects with the US. This horse hasn't just bolted, its ran off to Acapulco, has been married, divorced with grandkids and has weeks to live from old age. If so, then there needs to be clarity provided for subsequent issues of this kind that occurs. It's real simple, the US State Dept knows whether or not the agreement with the UK provided Sacoolas with immunity in their opinion. Issue isn't that Dunn deserves justice or not, it's the hand wavy squirming that's occurring. So his claims of anything are clearly suspect, if she does not have immunity how can we know he is credible in how he'd expect the UK to react? If he's correct about a UK reaction in this situation, then why was he wrong in parliament and the letter. Now IANAL but an annex would imply a sub building separated from the main building that is considered the same building as the main building.ĭominic Raab also stood in parliament and said she had immunity, and sent a letter to Dunns parents stating that fact. The US has enhanced immunity, indeed I remember reading it states Croughton is an annex of the US Embassy. You do not know the contents of the US/UK consular convention. So Northamptonshire police just let her go on her claim? I don't think so, someone's not telling the truth. The family are also being represented by Geoffrey Robertson QC is joint head of Doughty Street Chambers and their spokesman is Radd Seiger a Partner at Kennedys Law firm, and a neighbour who knew Harry. I also felt the Dunn family Lawyer Mark Stephens brought up some ver intersting points in a recent interview. As oit's now being argued thar legally the Foreign Office did not have the authority to make any special deal and nor did it have the authoruty to advise Northamoptonshire Police.Īs well as the CPS Criminal Case and Judicial Review, the Dunn family have filed a case against the US Government and Anne Sacoolas in the US Courts. The Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said he had told the US Ambassador the government was "disappointed" about the decision and that the UK "would have acted differently" had the crash occurred in the US and involved a UK diplomat.Īs for Diplomatic Immunity, the Foreign Office have stated that they never said she had Diplomatic Immunity and are using this as a lame defence in terms of the Judicial Review which will take place at the High Court and may go to appeal at the Supreme Court. Inquiring minds want to know.Īnne Sacoolas was not a diplomat, and the agreement that the FCO was trying to use has been called in to question. The UKs Ambassador to Iran was arrested for provoking a protest, should he be subject to the Iranian equivalent of the UKs CPS. I'd be interested to know Andrea Leadsoms opinion on whether her opinion of DI applies to just within the UK, or to every country UK diplomats are stationed. Now they're hand waving and backtracking. What is the USSD to think, that everything that happened from not being detained, to verbal confirmation by the head of departments was all just a big mistake, as was their understanding of the UK/US Consular Convention? The Home Secretary sent a letter to the victims parents confirming it. The FCO initially stated in parliament the accused had immunity. I don't think mant people in the UK are impressed with this decision by the US State Department. This decision coupled with disputes over the planned UK Digital Service Tax, Iran and the use of Huawei 5G Technology mean that it's been one of the worst weeks for UK and US relations in a long time.
0 kommentar(er)
