Author Topic: The Case of Anne Sacoolas  (Read 97 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« on: September 11, 2020, 09:21:PM »
The tragic death of Harry Dunn occurred in late August 2019 on a road near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire.

A strange thing, in view of what subsequently happened, is that Anne Sacoolas' behaviour at the scene of the incident was, by all accounts, perfectly proper, and I gather she co-operated with Northamptonshire Police.  She was also breathalysed.  More on that later.

The Northamptonshire Police investigation was led by no lesser figure than the Chief Constable himself.  Mrs Sacoolas was interviewed.  To her credit, she admitted that she had driven on the wrong side of the road. Diplomatic immunity was discussed.

In late September 2019, Northamptonshire Police applied to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office for a waiver of immunity.  The police were promptly informed that the waiver was declined and Mrs Sacoolas had already returned to the United States.  I assume the decision to decline the waiver was taken by the United States, probably by its State Department, which is responsible for foreign affairs.

A major point of discussion about this case is whether Mrs Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity in the first place.  The conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, Q.C., was that Anne Sacoolas did not have diplomatic immunity, but it seems to me he may be the wrong person to ask, as he is the nominal head of the prosecuting authority.  Personally, I take a different view to Mr Hill.  I think Mrs Sacoolas did have the basis for some form of diplomatic or state immunity, but I am not going into that point here because it's not the issue, as such.  The real issue is whether the United States should have asserted this immunity (on whatever basis) or waived it.

My understanding is that where an official under immunity protection faces a bona fide criminal investigation, then in international customary law, there is an obligation on the official's home state to waive this immunity in order that the host state's legal procedures can be pursued, if this is the course decided on.  That has not happened here.  Instead, the United States asserted immunity for Anne Sacoolas and, under instructions from her superiors, she left the jurisdiction.  Thus, it seems that the United States is in breach of its obligations.

This controversial decision taken by the U.S. government hierarchy has made matters worse for Anne Sacoolas in at least three respects:

First, it brought to national attention a fairly mundane, albeit very tragic, traffic incident, reports of which probably would have been limited to the local press and media of Northamptonshire had she faced the music. 

Second, under political pressure, English prosecutors have now charged Mrs Sacoolas not with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, but with the significantly more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which more often carries an immediate custodial sentence - presumably, this has happened because the charge needs to be of sufficient gravity to warrant extradition, though there may also be facts about the incident known to the authorities but not as yet public knowledge. 

Third, it means Anne Sacoolas is now wanted by the law in the UK, which undermines her socially and professionally.  Technically, she is not a fugitive as she did not flee the jurisdiction, rather she departed under instructions from the home state and under the auspices of claimed immunity; but, as long as the request from Britain remains outstanding, she is socially and professionally compromised.  In addition, while the prospects for extradition are currently low, the matter will not be dropped, which means there will always be a fear in her mind that the U.S. authorities may agree to extradite her at some point in the future should political circumstances change.  An outstanding extradition request also affects her ability to travel outside the United States, as Britain could create an Interpol Red Alert Notice for her and re-direct its request to whatever jurisdiction she happens to be in.

Why didn't Anne Sacoolas continue with her impeccable co-operation?  This would normally have resulted in either a No Further Action decision by the police or a charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.  In the latter case, the harm to her socially and professionally would have been minimal: she turns up at court, pleads guilty and shows contrition, takes a bollocking from the magistrates or a district judge or Crown Court judge (depending on whether she is sentenced in the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court), and accepts a fine or maybe a suspended prison sentence (the most likely outcome).  Probably few people outside Northamptonshire would have known or cared, her immigration status would probably have been unaffected (especially given the nature of her husband's work), and her neighbours back in Virginia would have been none the wiser about her indiscretion abroad.

How and why did the United States make this apparent error?  One possible explanation is that Mrs Sacoolas was undertaking sensitive work in Britain.  It has been revealed that she is a former CIA operative.

Another possibility goes back to my observation at the start of this piece about the breathalyser test.  So far, I can't find anything online about the result of it.  It could be that there is more to the incident than has been admitted publicly and this may also explain the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.  This may also, in turn, have been a factor in why she left the jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 09:38:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12856
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2020, 10:11:PM »
The USA, like Russia, never extradites its own citizens. As far as Anne Sacoolas is concerned she is clearly guilty of causing the death of this 19-year-old and attempted to wriggle out of any charge. The British Establishment has evidently conspired to keep the Dunn family from receiving justice, probably considers them common and able to be bought off at the White House meeting, a solution which to their credit they refused.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2020, 10:33:PM »
The USA, like Russia, never extradites its own citizens. As far as Anne Sacoolas is concerned she is clearly guilty of causing the death of this 19-year-old and attempted to wriggle out of any charge. The British Establishment has evidently conspired to keep the Dunn family from receiving justice, probably considers them common and able to be bought off at the White House meeting, a solution which to their credit they refused.

That (in bold) is not true.  The United States does extradite its own citizens, including to the UK.  What is true is that they have extradited significantly less of their own citizens here than we have extradited ours there, but one reason for this will be because, at least when it comes to extradition, the United States has deeper and greater due process protections in its criminal laws compared to jurisdictions of the UK.

We don't know if Anne Sacoolas is guilty of causing Harry Dunn's death.  She hasn't been tried and we don't know all the facts.  I'd like to know about that breathalyser test, for one thing.  What we do know is that she admitted being on the wrong side of the road, which would imply that, at the least, she was a factor in the incident.

I also dispute your assertion that Anne Sacoolas wriggled out of the charges herself.  First, at the time she left the jurisdiction, she wasn't charged, she was only under investigation.  Second, she left on the instructions of her husband's superiors (and I suspect she works for them too).  That does not make it OK, and of course she could, if she wanted, defy her own government and return voluntarily, but that's unlikely as she is clearly part of the U.S. intelligence community in some sense and that, I believe, is the overarching (or underlying) issue here.

I do agree with your last sentence, though.  For reasons that are not entirely understood, perhaps not even by the actors themselves, the British Establishment (political, corporate, legal, financial, military) is - for better or ill - tied to the United States' Establishment.  I think it is for ill and, as an aside, before you suggest I am siding with the Americans, I ought to add that I have no affinity or sympathy for the United States whatever and, if it were up to me, Britain would withdraw from NATO, end the so-called 'special relationship', and close all U.S. bases on British soil.  I think we lost our country in 1945 - a War that was lost, not won - and have been occupied in one sense or other by the United States since the summer of 1940.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 10:35:PM by QCChevalier »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12856
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2020, 10:50:PM »
That (in bold) is not true.  The United States does extradite its own citizens, including to the UK.  What is true is that they have extradited significantly less of their own citizens here than we have extradited ours there, but one reason for this will be because, at least when it comes to extradition, the United States has deeper and greater due process protections in its criminal laws compared to jurisdictions of the UK.

We don't know if Anne Sacoolas is guilty of causing Harry Dunn's death.  She hasn't been tried and we don't know all the facts.  I'd like to know about that breathalyser test, for one thing.  What we do know is that she admitted being on the wrong side of the road, which would imply that, at the least, she was a factor in the incident.

I also dispute your assertion that Anne Sacoolas wriggled out of the charges herself.  First, at the time she left the jurisdiction, she wasn't charged, she was only under investigation.  Second, she left on the instructions of her husband's superiors (and I suspect she works for them too).  That does not make it OK, and of course she could, if she wanted, defy her own government and return voluntarily, but that's unlikely as she is clearly part of the U.S. intelligence community in some sense and that, I believe, is the overarching (or underlying) issue here.

I do agree with your last sentence, though.  For reasons that are not entirely understood, perhaps not even by the actors themselves, the British Establishment (political, corporate, legal, financial, military) is - for better or ill - tied to the United States' Establishment.  I think it is for ill and, as an aside, before you suggest I am siding with the Americans, I ought to add that I have no affinity or sympathy for the United States whatever and, if it were up to me, Britain would withdraw from NATO, end the so-called 'special relationship', and close all U.S. bases on British soil.  I think we lost our country in 1945 - a War that was lost, not won - and have been occupied in one sense or other by the United States since the summer of 1940.
You're right as I checked the figures and 40 US citizens were extradited to the UK 2004-11. I'm assuming these were criminals involved with drugs and white collar crime. As far as Anne Sacoolas is concerned it's evident to me that she did cause the death of Harry Dunn. She had been in the country only for three weeks, she probably had had little if any experience of driving on the left, and had a previous driving offence in her home state of Virginia.

As far as you advocating Britain withdrawing from NATO is concerned that's your prerogative. France tried the same course but came back. You're wrong about the 1940 date, when Britain stood alone in World War Two. Lend-Lease didn't kick in until March 1941 and US troops didn't arrive until January 1942.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2020, 10:55:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2020, 11:19:PM »
You're right as I checked the figures and 40 US citizens were extradited to the UK 2004-11. I'm assuming these were criminals involved with drugs and white collar crime. As far as Anne Sacoolas is concerned it's evident to me that she did cause the death of Harry Dunn. She had been in the country only for three weeks, she probably had had little if any experience of driving on the left, and had a previous driving offence in her home state of Virginia.

As far as you advocating Britain withdrawing from NATO is concerned that's your prerogative. France tried the same course but came back. You're wrong about the 1940 date, when Britain stood alone in World War Two. Lend-Lease didn't kick in until March 1941 and US troops didn't arrive until January 1942.

The date of summer 1940 is based on Dunkirk.  In effect, I think Britain lost the War at that point.  I know the American troops arrived much later, but the cogs started turning at least in the summer of 1940, probably long before depending on what view you take of Churchill and who was backing him.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12856
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2020, 11:24:PM »
The date of summer 1940 is based on Dunkirk.  In effect, I think Britain lost the War at that point.  I know the American troops arrived much later, but the cogs started turning at least in the summer of 1940, probably long before depending on what view you take of Churchill and who was backing him.
I'm trying to keep it civil, so I'll just say there are different interpretations of Britain's role in WW2.

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2020, 11:54:PM »
The tragic death of Harry Dunn occurred in late August 2019 on a road near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire.

A strange thing, in view of what subsequently happened, is that Anne Sacoolas' behaviour at the scene of the incident was, by all accounts, perfectly proper, and I gather she co-operated with Northamptonshire Police.  She was also breathalysed.  More on that later.

The Northamptonshire Police investigation was led by no lesser figure than the Chief Constable himself.  Mrs Sacoolas was interviewed.  To her credit, she admitted that she had driven on the wrong side of the road. Diplomatic immunity was discussed.

In late September 2019, Northamptonshire Police applied to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office for a waiver of immunity.  The police were promptly informed that the waiver was declined and Mrs Sacoolas had already returned to the United States.  I assume the decision to decline the waiver was taken by the United States, probably by its State Department, which is responsible for foreign affairs.

A major point of discussion about this case is whether Mrs Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity in the first place.  The conclusion of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill, Q.C., was that Anne Sacoolas did not have diplomatic immunity, but it seems to me he may be the wrong person to ask, as he is the nominal head of the prosecuting authority.  Personally, I take a different view to Mr Hill.  I think Mrs Sacoolas did have the basis for some form of diplomatic or state immunity, but I am not going into that point here because it's not the issue, as such.  The real issue is whether the United States should have asserted this immunity (on whatever basis) or waived it.

My understanding is that where an official under immunity protection faces a bona fide criminal investigation, then in international customary law, there is an obligation on the official's home state to waive this immunity in order that the host state's legal procedures can be pursued, if this is the course decided on.  That has not happened here.  Instead, the United States asserted immunity for Anne Sacoolas and, under instructions from her superiors, she left the jurisdiction.  Thus, it seems that the United States is in breach of its obligations.

This controversial decision taken by the U.S. government hierarchy has made matters worse for Anne Sacoolas in at least three respects:

First, it brought to national attention a fairly mundane, albeit very tragic, traffic incident, reports of which probably would have been limited to the local press and media of Northamptonshire had she faced the music. 

Second, under political pressure, English prosecutors have now charged Mrs Sacoolas not with causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, but with the significantly more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving, which more often carries an immediate custodial sentence - presumably, this has happened because the charge needs to be of sufficient gravity to warrant extradition, though there may also be facts about the incident known to the authorities but not as yet public knowledge. 

Third, it means Anne Sacoolas is now wanted by the law in the UK, which undermines her socially and professionally.  Technically, she is not a fugitive as she did not flee the jurisdiction, rather she departed under instructions from the home state and under the auspices of claimed immunity; but, as long as the request from Britain remains outstanding, she is socially and professionally compromised.  In addition, while the prospects for extradition are currently low, the matter will not be dropped, which means there will always be a fear in her mind that the U.S. authorities may agree to extradite her at some point in the future should political circumstances change.  An outstanding extradition request also affects her ability to travel outside the United States, as Britain could create an Interpol Red Alert Notice for her and re-direct its request to whatever jurisdiction she happens to be in.

Why didn't Anne Sacoolas continue with her impeccable co-operation?  This would normally have resulted in either a No Further Action decision by the police or a charge of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.  In the latter case, the harm to her socially and professionally would have been minimal: she turns up at court, pleads guilty and shows contrition, takes a bollocking from the magistrates or a district judge or Crown Court judge (depending on whether she is sentenced in the Magistrates' Court or Crown Court), and accepts a fine or maybe a suspended prison sentence (the most likely outcome).  Probably few people outside Northamptonshire would have known or cared, her immigration status would probably have been unaffected (especially given the nature of her husband's work), and her neighbours back in Virginia would have been none the wiser about her indiscretion abroad.

How and why did the United States make this apparent error?  One possible explanation is that Mrs Sacoolas was undertaking sensitive work in Britain.  It has been revealed that she is a former CIA operative.

Another possibility goes back to my observation at the start of this piece about the breathalyser test.  So far, I can't find anything online about the result of it.  It could be that there is more to the incident than has been admitted publicly and this may also explain the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.  This may also, in turn, have been a factor in why she left the jurisdiction.
   Perhaps you have already read Craig Murray's reporting on this, but if not he has some excellent  insights into the whole affair. There are a number of articles written by him and he is particularly knowledgeable on the law surrounding Diplomatic Immunity. You are probably correct on the status of Anne Sacoolas, who was almost certainly a intelligence operative.
    NATO, should have disbanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union and ending of the Warsaw Pact. It became more a pact of aggression rather than defence at this point. It is currently a criminal organisation in my view and it's involvement in conflicts around the world since the Soviet Union disbanded are self evidently acts of aggressive war.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #7 on: September 12, 2020, 11:01:AM »
I'm trying to keep it civil, so I'll just say there are different interpretations of Britain's role in WW2.

You're not civil.  If you were, you wouldn't even need to say it. 

My view is that Britain and its Empire should not have entered the War at all.  I think it was a disaster, and it's only a myth that we 'won'.  Social/emotional pressure from people like you, who get your understanding of things from mainstream sources, props up the myth and deters/discourages people from examining things more closely and objectively.

When I was younger, I met/knew a number of former servicemen who had served in the War and who expressed similar views to mine above.  Disdain for Churchill and scepticism about the War was quite common in Britain at the time it all happened, and the War was, for a period, very unpopular, especially among the ordinary working class.

In the first place, it was Britain (and France) that started the War, not Germany. 

Hitler had no serious wish or intention to invade Britain, and his invasion of the western Continent (France, Benelux) was for strategic purposes.  He would have happily given those countries their independence, under assurances that Germany would have a free hand in the East - which personally I would have had no problem with. 

Ask yourself: Why, for example, didn't Britain and France ally with Germany against the Soviet Union, in order to deter the expansion of sovietism into Eastern Europe? 

Was the fate of Eastern Europeans better under Stalin than under Hitler?

I could go on with the questions, but won't.  The answers do depend on one's point-of-view and the type of person you are. 

Britain historically has tended to ally with Russia in an effort to contain the two larger Continental powers, France and Germany.  I think both of the 20th. century world wars can be viewed in that context, as Britain pursuing its geopolitical goals.  Personally I am of the view that Britain should have stayed out of it and allowed Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to fight it out, while developing its own defence - including an atomic capability - in order to face whoever won out or deal with the (more likely) 'cold war' stalemate at the end.  Perhaps if it became clear that Germany would prevail in the East, Britain could have then joined on the German side to deal a death blow and then come to a strategic arrangement with Germany.  There was a current of opinion within the British Establishment that favoured strategic alliance with Germany rather than Russia/the Soviets.

The Americans presented a complication.  They entered the War officially/politically in 1942, but I would argue they really entered the War in the late summer/early autumn of 1940.  That was the point at which they became de facto belligerents, and Churchill's government in effect handed Britain's future over to the United States at that point.

The idea that the Americans did this to defeat fascism/Nazism, or whatever, is naive.  Britain and the United States were still rivals in the 1930s, and had been at cold stand-off for much of the late 19th. and early 20th. century, and could have been at war.  Some informed commentators earlier in the 20th. century had thought that the most likely 'world war' would be between the British Empire and the United States, with the main theatre being a war over Canada.

The Americans used destroyers-for-bases and Lend Lease to enter the War and finally take control of Britain.  The situation was formalised in 1942, after intervention had become politically-acceptable in domestic American politics.

My central point is this: I favour British independence/sovereignty and the way to have preserved that would have been neutrality or strategic alliance with Nazi Germany.

The alternative, that Britain pursued, was a different Faustian pact, in which we handed-over our effective sovereignty to the Americans and bound ourselves into a liberalised international order, then under their encouragement, we ditched our Empire, allowed mass Third World immigration into the country, and sought to join the EEC (as it was then called).  In effect, we became a puppet of the United States rather than a proud independent country.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 11:02:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #8 on: September 12, 2020, 11:14:AM »
   Perhaps you have already read Craig Murray's reporting on this, but if not he has some excellent  insights into the whole affair. There are a number of articles written by him and he is particularly knowledgeable on the law surrounding Diplomatic Immunity. You are probably correct on the status of Anne Sacoolas, who was almost certainly a intelligence operative.
    NATO, should have disbanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union and ending of the Warsaw Pact. It became more a pact of aggression rather than defence at this point. It is currently a criminal organisation in my view and it's involvement in conflicts around the world since the Soviet Union disbanded are self evidently acts of aggressive war.

Craig Murray thinks she did not have diplomatic immunity, but I think that is an argument in principle and is barking up the wrong tree.  The issue is whether the United States should have asserted immunity or waived it.  It is clear they should have waived it and law required this.  I cannot think of any argument that could justify asserting immunity in such circumstances, on any basis.  Even if she is an active operative on sensitive assignments, surely arrangements could have been put in place to allow the police and legal system to pursue matters as appropriate?

Britain has left the EU and we should distance ourselves from them militarily as well, and we should now withdraw from NATO.  Britain should pursue a neutral stance on the basis of national self-interest only - in my view.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 11:14:AM by QCChevalier »

Offline Roch

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11477
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #9 on: September 12, 2020, 11:49:AM »
In effect, we became a puppet of the United States

I think this sums it up.  We are.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12856
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #10 on: September 12, 2020, 12:03:PM »
You're not civil.  If you were, you wouldn't even need to say it. 

My view is that Britain and its Empire should not have entered the War at all.  I think it was a disaster, and it's only a myth that we 'won'.  Social/emotional pressure from people like you, who get your understanding of things from mainstream sources, props up the myth and deters/discourages people from examining things more closely and objectively.

When I was younger, I met/knew a number of former servicemen who had served in the War and who expressed similar views to mine above.  Disdain for Churchill and scepticism about the War was quite common in Britain at the time it all happened, and the War was, for a period, very unpopular, especially among the ordinary working class.

In the first place, it was Britain (and France) that started the War, not Germany

Hitler had no serious wish or intention to invade Britain, and his invasion of the western Continent (France, Benelux) was for strategic purposes.  He would have happily given those countries their independence, under assurances that Germany would have a free hand in the East - which personally I would have had no problem with

Ask yourself: Why, for example, didn't Britain and France ally with Germany against the Soviet Union, in order to deter the expansion of sovietism into Eastern Europe? 

Was the fate of Eastern Europeans better under Stalin than under Hitler?

I could go on with the questions, but won't.  The answers do depend on one's point-of-view and the type of person you are. 

Britain historically has tended to ally with Russia in an effort to contain the two larger Continental powers, France and Germany.  I think both of the 20th. century world wars can be viewed in that context, as Britain pursuing its geopolitical goals.  Personally I am of the view that Britain should have stayed out of it and allowed Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to fight it out, while developing its own defence - including an atomic capability - in order to face whoever won out or deal with the (more likely) 'cold war' stalemate at the end.  Perhaps if it became clear that Germany would prevail in the East, Britain could have then joined on the German side to deal a death blow and then come to a strategic arrangement with Germany.  There was a current of opinion within the British Establishment that favoured strategic alliance with Germany rather than Russia/the Soviets.

The Americans presented a complication.  They entered the War officially/politically in 1942, but I would argue they really entered the War in the late summer/early autumn of 1940.  That was the point at which they became de facto belligerents, and Churchill's government in effect handed Britain's future over to the United States at that point.

The idea that the Americans did this to defeat fascism/Nazism, or whatever, is naive.  Britain and the United States were still rivals in the 1930s, and had been at cold stand-off for much of the late 19th. and early 20th. century, and could have been at war.  Some informed commentators earlier in the 20th. century had thought that the most likely 'world war' would be between the British Empire and the United States, with the main theatre being a war over Canada.

The Americans used destroyers-for-bases and Lend Lease to enter the War and finally take control of Britain.  The situation was formalised in 1942, after intervention had become politically-acceptable in domestic American politics.

My central point is this: I favour British independence/sovereignty and the way to have preserved that would have been neutrality or strategic alliance with Nazi Germany.

The alternative, that Britain pursued, was a different Faustian pact, in which we handed-over our effective sovereignty to the Americans and bound ourselves into a liberalised international order, then under their encouragement, we ditched our Empire, allowed mass Third World immigration into the country, and sought to join the EEC (as it was then called).  In effect, we became a puppet of the United States rather than a proud independent country.
Oh please. You really think Nazi Germany should have been given "a free hand in the East," a euphemism for the diabolical atrocities of the Holocaust?  You think we should have allied ourselves with Nazi Germany to destroy the Bolshevik menace? You think the Americans were imperialists despite the massive Marshall Plan aid they gave us after the war?

Complete nonsense as usual.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 12:04:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8860
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2020, 12:39:PM »
Cant the family open a wrongful death lawsuit in the US?


Moreover, in situations like these. Anne Sacoolas has to live with herself.

A more extreme example would be the pilot of the Shoreham Airshow crash. He killed 11 people and was acquitted. Nevertheless has to live with himself.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 12:45:PM by David1819 »

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2020, 12:47:PM »
Oh please. You really think Nazi Germany should have been given "a free hand in the East," a euphemism for the diabolical atrocities of the Holocaust?  You think we should have allied ourselves with Nazi Germany to destroy the Bolshevik menace? You think the Americans were imperialists despite the massive Marshall Plan aid they gave us after the war?

Complete nonsense as usual.

To me, this is just mainstream hogwash.  I prefer to think for myself.

Offline QCChevalier

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2020, 01:11:PM »
Cant the family open a wrongful death lawsuit in the US?


Moreover, in situations like these. Anne Sacoolas has to live with herself.

A more extreme example would be the pilot of the Shoreham Airshow crash. He killed 11 people and was acquitted. Nevertheless has to live with himself.

You are right: she has it on her conscience, which is perhaps the worst punishment of all.  She would assuage her conscience if she ignored her superiors in Washington, D.C., and travelled back here to face the consequences.

Wrongful death litigation is a good idea, and I believe it would be easy for them to secure funding for such an action as the rules against champerty are much looser in most U.S. states than in England & Wales.  The only serious obstacle, I should have thought, would be forum issues, conflict of laws and jurisdictional complexities.  It would depend, first, on whether the relevant U.S. state can assert worldwide jurisdiction, and second, on whether the court would accept the inevitable argument from Sacoolas' lawyers that the correct jurisdiction is England & Wales.

It may be easier to bring an equivalent civil action in an English court, and then attempt to enforce the judgment in the United States.  I believe wrongful death is not a tort here, but there must be some comparable cause of action available.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2020, 01:13:PM by QCChevalier »

Online gringo

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1606
Re: The Case of Anne Sacoolas
« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2020, 01:54:PM »
 Craig Murray thinks she did not have diplomatic immunity, but I think that is an argument in principle and is barking up the wrong tree.  The issue is whether the United States should have asserted immunity or waived it.  It is clear they should have waived it and law required this.

  I suspect that Craig Murray's analysis is more likely correct than your knee jerk assertions.
  His analysis comes with supporting evidence and he does actually know about the subject given his background. You are just expressing opinion with nothing to support it other than your own arrogance.
You claim legal knowledge or expertise over other posters on a regular basis and this is supported only by your own bluster.