The Foreign Office Must Be Challenged Over Sacoolas’ Immunity 319

The government has stepped up its lies about immunity in the Sacoolas case to a breathtaking degree. I genuinely am astounded by the sheer audacity of the lies now being told, including a staggeringly mendacious FCO-briefed BBC article yesterday stating that “23,000 individuals in the UK have diplomatic immunity” and that it extends to “drivers and cooks”. This follows up the breathtaking FCO statement to Sky News that RAF Croughton “is regarded as an annex to the US Embassy in London” – a total falsehood.

What I cannot understand is why. The entire incident is extremely strange. On the face of it, Harry Dunn’s death was a tragic accident caused by somebody who had not long been in the UK driving on the wrong side of the road. This dreadful mistake is forgivable, as Harry’s very sensible parents have said; there seems little reason to believe the justice system would have been more harsh. There was no conceivable need to run away. That is what they cannot forgive.

Make no mistake; the spiriting of the Sacoolas family out of the UK was a considered act by the US Government and, in the case of a manslaughter in an allied state, the decision not to waive immunity would have been taken right at the top of the State Department. Make no mistake about it either, the FCO would have been informed and complicit in the decision and has only pretended to protest after massive public pressure, got up by Harry’s admirable family a full three weeks after the incident had been, the government would have hoped, successfully buried.

But why? It should be stated that it is the norm to waive diplomatic immunity in serious cases between allied or friendly developed states, where each has confidence in the other’s justice system. Unless the accident did not happen as stated, or there is a Chris Huhne type blame switch involved (Trump yesterday very carefully made the point that cameras had confirmed the identity of the driver – I was not sure why he brought this up when nobody had questioned it), it is very hard to understand why diplomatic immunity has been insisted on in this case. Assuming that Anne Sacoolas was the driver and the incident was as described, the only explanation I can think of is that it was hoped by getting them out the country to avoid all publicity and scrutiny of Jonathon Sacoolas’ real job, which is to spy on British citizens communications’ for GCHQ, who face legal impediments in doing so.

I would like to be able to say that if that cover-up is the plan, it has backfired, except that the media has unanimously censored all reporting of what Sacoolas actually does in the UK. Which is quite extraordinary given the massive but (deliberately) wildly misleading coverage of this case. I wish there were many more places than here you could come to learn the truth, but there are not. In which context, it is worth noting that both Buzzfeed and the Huffington Post have joined the DSMA Notice Committee and become willing tools of the UK security services.

After I pointed out that Sacoolas does not appear on the Diplomatic List, does not hold diplomatic rank and is not accredited to a diplomatic mission, and therefore cannot be a “diplomatic agent” under the Vienna Convention, the FCO first admitted this and claimed his immunity stemmed from a separate bilateral agreement, as reported by Sky News.

Having negotiated many international agreements in my time in the FCO, I know that they need to be given effect in UK domestic law, usually by Order in Council. I therefore searched for legislation giving the Secretary of State authority to grant immunity from criminal prosecution under bilateral agreements for spy bases, and I could find nothing. The legal basis for granting immunities under the Vienna Convention is the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, which enacted it into UK legislation. The legal basis for granting military immunity under Status of Forces Agreements, or for NATO personnel, is clear and set out in the Visiting Forces Act of 1952.

I could find nothing that would give legal powers to a Secretary of State to grant immunity to US spies on military bases working on communications interception of UK citizens. No legislation was passed to give legal effect in the UK to the reputed bilateral agreements which cover this.

I therefore wrote to the FCO asking for a copy of the bilateral agreement under which Sacoolas has immunity, and a copy of the UK legislation giving the authority to grant the immunity to the Secretary of State. I have not received any reply, but apparently it concentrated minds because the FCO has now switched to make an aggressive – and nonsensical – assertion that Sacoolas is a diplomat in terms of the Vienna Convention.

Not only that, the FCO’s admission to Mark Stephens, reported in that original article by Sky News, that Sacoolas was not a diplomat under the Vienna Convention has been expunged from history. The Sky News defence correspondent Alistair Bunkall had tweeted a reply to me copying this report, as evidence there was no DSMA notice controlling the reporting of the Sacoolas case.

Yet this article, held up by Bunkall as evidence of a free media, was within 24 hours totally rewritten to remove the FCO’s admission that Sacoolas was not on the diplomatic list, and replace it with the new FCO attack line of strong assertion that Sacoolas is covered by the Vienna Convention, and to highlight Dominic Raab’s entirely insincere and pretend effort to request Sacoolas’ return. The story has in effect been completely rewritten by the FCO. This is what the same page, the same url, Bunkall tweeted out looks like now:

Pretty well all that remains of the original – accurate – story is the url, now totally at odds with the content There is no acknowledgement that the story has been changed, and the original is strangely not available even on the wayback machine. If Bunkall has not tweeted it, it would be difficult to prove this brief moment of reporting the truth had never existed. The irony of Bunkall’s tweeting a now completely censored report as evidence of press freedom is stunning.

Forgive me but I here must insert my original post on Sacoolas to make plain the actual legal position:

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.

Article 31 of the Vienna Convention states that:

A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state

Article 37 extends this privilege to family members living in his household. A “diplomatic agent” is defined in article 2(d).

The “members of the diplomatic staff” are the members of the staff of the mission having diplomatic rank;

Jonathan Sacoolas does not hold, and has never held, a diplomatic rank. He has never been a member of staff of a diplomatic mission. (All those with diplomatic rank appear in the diplomatic list, see above link. That list also includes some attaches who do not have diplomatic rank (depending on the type of attache), but there is nobody with diplomatic rank not in the list).

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.

None of which has anything to do with diplomacy, and Sacoolas must be the subject of a DSMA notice given that all mainstream media are referring to him constantly as a “diplomat”, when they all know that is not true. The irony is of course that if Sacoolas actually was a real diplomat, the US would very probably have waived the diplomatic immunity of his wife, as the issues around his presence and function would be much less sensitive.

The UK has no Vienna Convention obligation to acknowledge the “immunity” of Sacoolas’ wife, contrary to all reporting to date. What does apparently exist between the UK and US is a secret, bilateral agreement to treat GCHQ and NSA staff as if they had diplomatic immunity. That is not at all the same thing as Vienna Convention protection under international law. I cannot conceive the grief of Harry Dunn’s parents, but I do hope that they are not deceived by the pretence at intervention in this case by Johnson and Raab.

I am not at all convinced, as a matter of law, that the government has the power to grant, by bilateral treaty or otherwise, immunity from criminal prosecution to foreign nationals, plainly outside the provisions of the Vienna Convention. This should be tested by the courts.


With this in mind, let us examine the claims made by the FCO to the media in response. From that Sky News report we have:

This is utter nonsense. It is simply untrue. RAF Croughton is not an annex to the US Embassy. The FCO has invented this lie to counter the fact that, to qualify for diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention, Sacoolas must be attached to a diplomatic mission. RAF Croughton is not a diplomatic mission. A RAF base cannot be a US Embassy.

That RAF Croughton is an annex of the US Embassy can be immediately disproved. An Embassy is the sovereign territory of the nation which owns it. Within Embassy premises, the law which applies is the law of the Embassy’s state, not the host state. That is not the case in RAF Croughton. That RAF Croughton is not an Annex of the US Embassy can be instantly proven beyond any doubt or argument by the fact that the bye-laws applicable within it are promulgated by the UK Secretary of State for Defence.

If the base were an annex to the US Embassy, the UK Secretary of State could not make bye-laws for it. There is no mention within the bye-laws covering security and management of and access to RAF Croughton of any area within it being part of the US Embassy. The claim is a simple and straightforward lie, and a rather desperate one.

Finally, if RAF Croughton were an annex to the US Embassy and if Mr Sacoolas were a diplomat, the cars of both he and his wife would have diplomatic CD plates. Mrs Sacoolas was not driving a diplomatic car – an obviously vital fact in this case, again omitted from all mainstream media reporting.

There are further lies in the Sky News report.

On the contrary, the Diplomatic List is a comprehensive record of every diplomat notified to the FCO as having diplomatic status by Diplomatic Note – and as specified in Article 10 of the Vienna Convention, a person must be so notified to become a “diplomatic agent”. There are no “diplomatic agents” not on the Diplomatic List.

I was in the Foreign Office for 20 years and a member of its Senior Management Structure for 6 years. It would be nice if you took my word for this, but you don’t have to – it is very neatly explained at the very start of the Diplomatic List:

The entire purpose of the list is to record those with diplomatic immunity and the legislation under which they get it. From page 127 to 137 it lists those who have diplomatic immunity not under the Diplomatic Privileges Act – which only covers national Embassies and High Commissions – but under other legislation as they work not for nations but for international agencies: and in every individual case the Diplomatic List names the specific legislation which confers the immunity.

The major purpose of the London Diplomatic List is to be a compendium of diplomatic status with a precise attribution of immunity and its source. As Sacoolas is not listed as a diplomat of the US Embassy in the Diplomatic List or the Consular List, he is not a “diplomatic agent” entitled to full diplomatic immunity. Full stop. As explained below, Sacoolas’ wife would only have diplomatic immunity while driving privately if he held a full diplomatic rank (in which case her car would have diplomatic CD plates, which it does not).

The FCO claim that the Diplomatic List only covers London is also ludicrous. The same government webpage gives you the full list of consulates, with their consuls, and even of honorary consuls, outside of London. It does not list Embassy annexes outside London because there are none and the concept does not exist in international law. Embassy outposts from the capital are consulates or consular offices.

The FCO is trying to convince you that their entire section of staff who work on diplomatic accreditations and constantly update the Diplomatic List, are wasting their time on an entirely pointless exercise producing futile and incomplete lists. I wonder how those employees’ morale is today.

But Raab’s FCO did not stop there with the lies. They then briefed the BBC to produce an article on diplomatic immunity so full of lies as to be truly astonishing. I am prepared to confess that I could not complete this blog entry for three days because I was genuinely emotionally upset by the realisation that the UK now has a government whose noted penchant for “aggressive” media and opinion management means it is prepared to employ the big lie on any occasion and subject.

The BBC article is plainly based entirely on an FCO briefing and written with the express and sole intention of obscuring the fact that Sacoolas is not a diplomat. It contains so many outrageous lies that I am afraid this article is going to get still longer. If you have had the patience to stick with me so far, please bear with me a bit further.

This is another quite extraordinary lie, as anybody can easily confirm simply by reading the Vienna Convention. As explained above, full diplomatic immunity is enjoyed only by “diplomatic agents” who must be persons “Having diplomatic rank”.

As very plainly set out in articles 37 of the Vienna Convention:

Article 37
1.The members of the family of a diplomatic agent forming part of his household shall, if they are
not nationals of the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29 to 36.

2.Members of the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of
their families forming part of their respective households, shall, if they are not nationals of or
permanently resident in the receiving State, enjoy the privileges and immunities specified in articles 29
to 35, except that the immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving State specified
in paragraph 1 of article 31 shall not extend to acts performed outside the course of their duties. They
shall also enjoy the privileges specified in article 36, paragraph 1, in respect of articles imported at the
time of first installation.

3.Members of the service staff of the mission who are not nationals of or permanently resident in
the receiving State shall enjoy immunity in respect of acts performed in the course of their duties,
exemption from dues and taxes on the emoluments they receive by reason of their employment and the
exemption contained in article 33.

So “diplomatic agents” “having diplomatic rank” – which, remember, Sacoolas does not have – hold full immunity as do their families.

“Administrative and technical staff” have immunity from prosecution only while performing acts “in the course of their duties”. That is while actually engaged in work for their governments, not outwith their working time. Their families also have exactly the same immunity, and as the families do not have any official duties to be engaged in, in practice their immunity is only civil ie from taxation.

In the case of another spy, Shai Masot, not on the diplomatic list, when challenged as to his diplomatic status the FCO claimed he was not a “diplomatic agent” but only “technical and administrative staff”. As an NSA communications interception expert Sacoolas could arguably be “technical and administrative staff” if it were true that RAF Croughton were an annex of the US Embassy – but that plainly is not true.

However even were Sacoolas covered by immunity as “technical and administrative work” he and his family would only be covered for events that happened in the direct course of his work, and very, very plainly Anne Sacoolas would not have had diplomatic immunity when she hit Harry Dunn. She only had immunity if Sacoolas is a full blown “diplomatic agent” – which he isn’t. We are yet to be told what “diplomatic rank” he allegedly holds. So for the BBC to try to obscure the case with cooks and gardeners – who as “service staff” have even less immunity and their families none at all – is deliberate obfuscation.

This is an utterly tendentious claim. As explained above, the only people with practical diplomatic immunity outside their actual work are full blown diplomats, and there are just over 3,000 of them, all captured in the Diplomatic List. The BBC report attempts to make out that categories such as “international organisations” account for significant parts of this alleged horde of diplomats, but as noted above those from international organisations entitled to diplomatic immunity are all in the London Diplomatic List pp 127 to 137 and amount to just 220 people. It is also worth remembering that the majority of family members who have immunity are children.

There is a much larger number of military personnel who enjoy immunity under the Visiting Forces Act – a total disgrace, in my view – but this is not diplomatic immunity and it is not claimed Sacoolas has it. I have no idea where the ridiculous 23,000 figure for diplomatic immunity originates. Dominic Raab’s arse seems the best bet.

The Johnson/Raab PR strategy here is plain – to drown investigation of Sacoolas’ extremely dodgy claim to political asylum in a sea of tens of thousands of fictitious holders of dodgy political asylum. The government has decided to make us overlook Sacoolas by pretending that there are 23,000 obscure foreigners roaming our country as “diplomats”, each of whom has the license to burgle your home, piss on your floor, kill your daughter and rape your son without facing any possible criminal prosecution or comeback. If this were true, it would be a catastrophic and alarming state of affairs. Thankfully it is a great morass of fiction the government has created within which to try and bury Sacoolas.

This fake “diplomatic immunity” needs to be challenged in court, but I am not sure anyone except Harry Dunn’s family has the locus to do this. Their son was killed by the wife of a spy and to avoid political embarrassment about his activities, the government has falsely connived at a status of diplomatic immunity and then pretended to be trying to get Mrs Sacoolas back. That is an awful lot to take in for people in a terrible state of grief. After losing a son, the cognitive dissonance involved in uncovering state secrets, and learning that the state is malevolent and senior ministerial office holders are liars, is a huge hurdle to surmount. The Dunn family have first to summon the will to fight it, and then to avoid the attempts to hug them in the suffocating embrace of an establishment lawyer – believe me the powers that be will be covertly thrusting one at them – who will advise them they are most likely to make progress if they rock no boats.

The only people I know of who effectively enjoy secret diplomatic immunity are spies from CIA/NSA like Jonathon Sacoolas or from Mossad like Shai Masot. There are not any other categories of pretend diplomats having immunity, and the elaborate charade to pretend that there are is a nonsense. It must not distract from the fact that the claim that the government can grant US and Israeli intelligence agencies diplomatic immunity at will is a lie. The government is acting illegally here. There is no legislation that covers Raab in allowing Mrs Sacoolas to kill – albeit accidentally – with impunity.

I pray both the government and Mrs Sacoolas will be brought to account. I hope Mr and Mrs Dunn find what peace they can with their loss, and are able to remember with due warmth the eighteen wonderful years that I am sure they had with their son.


Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

Recurring Donations



Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

319 thoughts on “The Foreign Office Must Be Challenged Over Sacoolas’ Immunity

1 2 3 4
  • Billy Brexit !

    In a televised press conference this afternoon, Harry Dunn’s mother said there is CCTV footage of Mrs Sacoolas leaving the gates of the RAF (USA) Spy base on the wrong side of the road and continuing to do so until the brow of a hill where the headlight of his motorbike can be seen coming in the opposite direction and then moments later there was a massive fireball when contact was made. There was considerable damage to the car but obviously much more to the motorbike and Harry. It is therefore possible the emergency services were called by the Airbase security as the crash would have been audible and probably visable to the security personnel patrolling the main gate.

  • Tom Welsh

    So the Streisand Effect strikes again. In a completely unnecessary attempt to “bury bad news”, HMG has conclusively proved to the entire world that it contains and supports barefaced liars, and that as a body it has not respect whatsoever for the rule of law.

  • Doug Scorgie

    N- 14 Oct 04:37

    The crash has been widely described as a hit and run.”

    I have not come across ANY media reports that have described the crash as a hit and run. Please elucidate.

    • N_

      Did you bother to look? Click herefor links to pieces describing it as hit and run in the Evening Standard, the Metro, the Sun, iNews, MSN, the Week, the Daily Star, the Scottish Sun, and Yahoo, and those are all on the first two pages of links.

      Can you provide a link to a single article saying that Anne Sacoolas remained on the scene until the police arrived? Even a single one?

        • Mark

          I think that when the press describe the accident as a hit and run they are referring to the fact that Mrs Sacoolas subsequently fled back to the United States (despite promising police she wouldn’t) rather then actually failing to stop after the accident.
          It seems to be a bit of journalistic headline writing. By the sound of it her car was so badly damaged she could not have driven off from the scene even if she had wanted.

          • N_

            I doubt the car was that badly damaged, and she might have left by other means. As the wife of a CIA officer in a foreign country she will have been trained to get the hell away from any off-base crash her vehicle was involved in. There are no reports saying she waited until the police arrived, but there was a statement by no less than Donald Trump himself saying that she was identified by CCTV. Had she waited around, there would have been no need for that, because she would already have given her name and address to the police. Everything points to her getting away from there as fast as greased lightning – in other words doing a hit and run.

          • Mark

            We don’t yet know the full details of what actually happened at the scene but the local police force have not publicly accused her of failing to stop at the accident scene. She had a young child in the car with her and would undoubtedly have been in considerable shock. My understanding is that the car was severely damaged (as it surely would have been in a head on collision if both vehicles were travelling at or about the maximum speed limit. Apparently the car went over the brow of a hill into a head on with the oncoming motorcycle and the flash of an explosion was seen from the military base. We will just have to wait for further details to emerge.

        • Ken Kenn


          The point is that this was described as an ” accident ” initially by the media.

          If it was just an accident then surely the woman would be found in her car utterly shocked and dazed?

          She wouldn’t initially be planning her families ( this was written in one article meaning her husband too?) escape
          rather be treated for shock or hospitalisation.

          So if it was just an accident then these accidents happen a lot.

          The gap between the incident suggest that a lot of thought went into whether to do a runner.

          Not immediately but over a period of time.

          This may or may not have been on the advice of certain people.

          Who gave the advice and why is what I’m wondering.

          What was there to run away from?

          The same media that declared the woman had Diplomatic immunity.

          • Denton Scratch

            “If it was just an accident then surely the woman would be found in her car utterly shocked and dazed?”


            I once stubbed my left little toe, climbing the stairs, while drunk. Toe was fractured. Accident. No cause for “dazed and confused” – I just had a six-hour wait in A&E (Saturday night, broken toes are low priority).

            Also, the woman had minors in her care. If you are looking after minors, you can’t afford to panic. Shock and daze is for losers, and this woman is supposedly the wife of an “operative”. I doubt she’s a dipsy-doo-dah with flipped-up hair and no brainz.

  • DiggerUK

    “Sacoolas’ wife would only have diplomatic immunity while driving privately if he held a full diplomatic rank (in which case her car would have diplomatic CD plates, which it does not” (quote C.M.)

    Is it mandatory for CD plates to be on cars in UK. According to this link to a “HMRC internal manual,
    Diplomatic Privileges Manual”
    “Diplomatic vehicles may be registered through the DVLA on either diplomatic or normal British plates. A special registration document will be issued in both cases. Requests for further information on registration should be referred to the DVLA Specialist Registrations team or the Protocol Directorate at the FCO.”

    If it is correct as reported that the Sacoolas did not enjoy diplomatic privileges, then she couldn’t carry CD plates on her vehicle. However as a general point, who would want a diplomatic vehicle not to be recognised as such….and why. It maybe a total red herring in the death of young Harry, but is an argumentative point by apologists on other forums.

    Help and guidance please…_

  • michael norton

    The killed teenager Harry Dunn’s family are asking the government to turn over all documents it has about the decision to grant diplomatic immunity to the suspect in the teenager’s death.
    Anne Sacoolas, 42, left the UK just days after a road crash which killed the 19-year-old motorcyclist.

    It seems possible that the Sacoolas family did not enjoy diplomatic immunity at the time of the accident which killed English teenager Harry Dunn.

    It is possible that as “stuff” started to come out, it was decided to remove the family Sacoolas back to Virginia.
    This might have been when the choice was made to grant them diplomatic immunity, in which case, this would have been for the reason to remove them, after the killing, from British justice.
    Not something either government would want publicly known.

  • Denton Scratch

    A scorching blog article. And damned right; the place that nonsense comes from is the fundamental orifice of that lying shyster, Dominic Raab.

    We have too many Dominics. Dominic Cummings was one too many.

    There used to be a joke: “Don’t be alert, be a loof. We have to many lerts already”.

  • Denton Scratch

    “the same way they tried to with Jean-Charles de Menezes’s family in Brazil”

    Really? I didn’t know that, can you substantiate the claim?

  • michael norton

    Mrs.Sacoolas has now said through her legal team spokesperson that she admits driving on the wrong side of the road and she is sorry.
    The family of the killed teenager are tonight invited to a meeting at
    The White House.

  • michael norton

    Geoffrey Robinson discusses the Immunity of the Sacoolas family on RAF bases in the U.K.
    Mr Seiger said the family’s lawyers, Mark Stephens and Geoffrey Robertson QC, were ready to launch a full investigation into the role the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) played in the decision to grant immunity to Mrs Sacoolas.

    this seems quite helpful.

    We could learn, exactly when the Sacoolas family gained diplomatic immunity.

    Some think it was not untill after the crash that killed young Harry but before they were whisked out the country on an American military cargo aircraft to langley virginia cia headquarters

  • Slave2PaperWithInkOn

    Eerily reminiscent of the 1985 UK film ”Defence of the Realm.” Teenager found dead NEAR a US base in the UK. Though in that film he was killed ON the base and it was made to look like a hit and run on a lane a few miles away !!

  • andrea casalotti

    Excellent post.

    Please do not refer to the killing as a “tragic accident”. Although not deliberate, it was caused by a distracted driver.

    To imply that such a dreadful mistake should be treated leniently by the courts is an insult to the hundreds of pedestrians slaughtered by motorists every year.

    “Accident” is very offensive to the families of victims of road violence.

  • Jenny laughlin

    Good read, I mentioned that the USA has a history of returning any rank of their military home as soon as they are involved in a motor accident as stated by USA retired military personal on an upper heyford FB page post I created with Harry’s story, tagging Tim Dunn in his lawyers post an within 30 minutes there was no trace on Facebook of the entire post/thread, scary stuff really I was married to a USAF NCO and just on area 51 stories I heard I know if the USA wants something to disappear it disappears, shame on our government for licking the USA’s arse

  • OnlyHalfALooney

    There’s something just incredibly fishy about the whole thing.

    I’m beginning to suspect it wasn’t a simple accident and that Anne Sacoolas is either almost certainly CIA herself or that she was not alone in that car.

    There’s just too much secrecy and obfuscation for it to have been a simple accident as described. If there was nothing to hide, there would be no need to even reveal her husband’s intelligence role. The whole affair could (and probably would) have been handled differently and quietly.

    • Mark

      Its certainly very odd. I really can’t understand the cause of the huge resistance to this woman facing justice in a UK court given the amount of bad publicity and diplomatic damage this has caused on both sides of the Atlantic. The basic sentence for Causing Death by Driving without due care and attention is a Community Order, driving disqualification and a fine. This is provided there were no aggravating factors and it was just momentary inattention. Words completely fail me regarding President Trumps cack handed attempt at the White House yesterday to spring a meeting between the grieving family and Anne Sacoolas. The on off status of the diplomatic immunity is also utterly bewildering.

      • OnlyHalfALooney

        There’s also Trump’s strange remark about “having the driver on camera”

        A terrible accident occurred. The person driving the car — they know who it was, and they have it on camera. A young man was killed on his motorcycle. He was killed — sounds like instantly killed.

        One could put this down to Trump’s “unmatched wisdom”. But it is a very odd thing to say indeed, because nobody has questioned who was driving the car. There must have been a time between the accident happening and the police/ambulance arriving. Plenty of time for any other possible persons in the car to quietly vanish from the scene. In fact, who first arrived on the scene? The base is very close. Isn’t it likely that the first thing Sacoolas would have done is to call the base?

        It’s all just incredibly strange.

        It’s also possible that the US decided to secretly fly the whole family out because the police were asking too many awkward questions and they realised their narrative wasn’t consistent with the facts.

        But so many things are possible. It’s all very very strange. And why the obvious suppression of the story on national security grounds?

    • michael norton

      If there is to be a British court case with Mrs. Sacoolas as the defendant, we will need to know, exactly who was in the car and where they were sitting.
      We would also need to now where they in a convoy and how many vehicles were in that convoy.

  • FobosDeimos

    The disgusting way in which the BBC is now beggining to fake a sort of remorse, by hinting that maybe, just maybe, Anne Sacoolas did not enjoy diplomatic protection after all:

    “Mrs Sacoolas was said to be covered by diplomatic immunity as the spouse of a US intelligence official, though that protection is now in dispute.”

    Thank you Craig for your brave pursuit for justice.

    • DiggerUK

      The BBC changing its tune tells me that Harry’s family demanding all communications in government departments with regards Anne Sacoolas ‘fake immunity’ have put the cat amongst the pigeons.

      If you check the BBC change of tune by going no further than the links in that article you will find that up to the 13th October she was a “US Diplomats wife”, on the 14th October she was “reportedly married to a US intelligence officer”, then by yesterday the 15th October the BBC were reporting that “Mrs Sacoolas was said to be covered by diplomatic immunity as the spouse of a US intelligence official, though that protection is now in dispute.”
      How about the truth, she was the wife of a spy who had no immunity. I wonder if she’ll turn up at Dominic Raabs leaving do…_

  • michael norton

    May be the Yanks did not want Mrs. Sacoolas to be on the stand, at all.
    If a question was put to her, such as
    “Mrs. Sacoolas how many people have you killed?”
    This could put the cat among the pigeons by “insinuating” she is CIA

  • Dungroanin

    So Potus sets up ambush meeting in WH with grieving parents and runaway driver – because he says Bobo asked him to!
    No10 today denies it was them.
    Instantly the NSC man in the WH is outed as the ‘nincompoop’ by the family lawyers as the driving force behind the attempted ambush.

    I think another of Trumps swampies just ran out of rope!

    He is having a great week!

  • Arby

    “There is no acknowledgement that the story has been changed, and the original is strangely not available even on the wayback machine.” Is that part of The Internet Archive, which states that it has partnered with Google’s First Draft Coalition (of fact checkers)? James Corbett cautions away from Sribd and then recommends The Internet Archive. I don’t get it because James is pretty solid.

  • Dungroanin

    Rabb has finally made a statement in the HoC tonight – which is a bit convoluted. Shadow minister Thornberry asked for clarifications.
    I am no wiser – so guess will have to wait for CM (& co) to unravel it for us asap, please.

  • Gary

    I see that the BBC are reporting on this again today. It must have been impossible for them to avoid doing so otherwise I fear they would not have dared mention it.

    They say that the Dunns are taking legal action for damages against Ann Sacoolas (as a last resort, they don’t say) and also against various parts of the US Govt over their policy on Diplomatic Immunity (I am doubtful this is exactly correct but feel they have reworded it to suit the narrative they want to portray)

    And, on the subject of narrative they have both cleverly and clumsily tried an old trick of using a fact to create a link in the mind of the viewer to make negative point. The BBC, for some VERY strange reason, decided to mention the actual location of the lawyers being used by the Dunn Family. They were keen to tell us they were using “Philadephphia lawyers” that EXACT phrase, not a legal firm from Philadelphia, not just American lawyers either. It seems to ring a bell and make it sound a bit, well, dodgy? Like the family are trying something disreputable? If it sounds that way to you, but you can’t think why then join the club. Not being well travelled enough to have BEEN in the US but to only have seen American crime shows you’ll probably heard the expression ‘Philadephia Lawyer’ but not EXACTLY recalled the meaning.

    So here IS the definition; “More recently the term has become a disparaging label for an attorney who is skillful in the manipulation of the technicalities and intricacies of the law to the advantage of his or her client, although the spirit of the law might be violated.”

    No accident that the BBC are using the term. People who have to write, rewrite and have their pieces checked multiple times before they are aired are literally UNABLE to make mistakes like this.

    If you think this is a little paranoid then think just how hard they worked to shoehorn this in to the piece without it being overtly noticeable. The previous legal advisors used by the Dunn Family were barely mentioned and their location certainly never came out in any reports..

  • George Hallmey

    Listening to Johua Rosenberg, Law in Action today: it appears that diplomatic immunity is now permitted to be applied to any US government personnel that they (US) decide will be given immunity. It seems the host country (UK) does not in fact have a say as to who does and does not have immunity. If there is any basis in law for this then Sacoolas could have just remained in the UK untouchable by police, who had originally stated she had immunity, that became revoked once she left the confines of the UK.
    Despite Craig’s very detailed description of the diplomatic register, one wonders if there is in fact any basis in law for the diplomatic immunity rules as stated today in the Rosenberg programme. Or are these rules just made ‘on the hoof’ by the Foreign Office of the day.

  • michael norton

    Sacoolas, who is married to a US intelligence official who was based at the RAF base, claimed diplomatic immunity. The British government said that she no longer had diplomatic immunity. Dunn’s family believe she may never have had immunity.

    Mark Stephens, solicitor for the Dunn family, said: “We don’t think she has ever had diplomatic immunity and there is no bar to extradition. It’s the morally right thing and legally right thing to extradite her.”

    Police have been investigating the cause of the accident and whether Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road.

    There is a case for the U.K. government to be very clear about this claimed immunity.
    What job does/did her husband actually do that endowed his family with immunity?

    A question,
    does immunity allow you to leave the U.K. after killing someone?

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.