[ad_1]
The parents of a British teenage girl who died in a car accident involving an American woman lost the Supreme Court battle against the British Foreign Office over whether she had diplomatic immunity.
Harry Dunn, 19, was killed when his motorcycle collided with a car that Anne Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on August 27 last year.
Ms. Sacoolas, whose husband Jonathan Sacoolas worked as a technical assistant at the base, left the country a few weeks later after the United States said she was entitled to diplomatic immunity.
The 43-year-old was finally charged with causing death by dangerous driving last December, but the US State Department rejected an extradition request in January, a decision it later described as “final.”
Harry’s parents, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, claimed that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) wrongly decided that Ms Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity and illegally obstructed the Northamptonshire Police investigation into her death. son forcibly keeping “in the dark”.
But, in a judgment delivered this morning, Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini said: “Our conclusion is that Ms Sacoolas enjoyed immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of Harry’s death.”
The judges also rejected Ms Charles and Mr Dunn’s claim that the FCDO “usurped” the Northamptonshire Police investigation into their son’s death, finding that the officers “intended to assist rather than obstruct the Northamptonshire Police in their investigation “.
The case of Ms. Charles and Mr. Dunn centered on a 1995 agreement between the UK and the US, granting immunity to RAF Croughton administrative and technical staff, which the US resigned in related to “acts performed outside the course of their duties”.
At a hearing earlier this month, her lawyers said the FCDO “assumed authority to resolve the immunity issue and ultimately and illegally decided to accept the US embassy’s decision that Anne Sacoolas had immunity.”
Sam Wordsworth QC told the court that Ms. Sacoolas “had no duty” at the base and therefore “never had any relevant immunity that the United States could waive.”
But Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini found that Ms Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity “upon arrival in the UK” under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) that had not been “expressly waived”, meaning that she “He had immunity at the time of death.”
The judges said: “We did not come to this conclusion with any enthusiasm for the result, but it is bound by the operation of the VCDR.”
Speaking after the ruling, Harry’s mother said: “The government and Ms. Sacoolas must understand that this court ruling is just a passage on the road.
“I promised my son that I would do him justice and that is what we are going to do. No one will stand in our way.”
He added: “It is obviously disappointing that this court has not ruled in our favor, but we are now more focused than ever on delivering on our promise.”
Dunn said, “I still wake up every morning in absolute disbelief that we are in this situation.
“It’s bad enough feeling the horrible pain of not having Harry around and missing him, but I can’t believe governments are putting us through this.
“It all seems so cruel and unnecessary and I am as angry today as ever, but so determined to take it all until we have justice.”
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said: “My thoughts today are with Harry’s family.
“While this ruling makes it clear that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted appropriately and legally at all times, I appreciate that it will not provide any comfort to the family in their search for justice.
“We are with them, we are clear that Anne Sacoolas needs to face justice in the United Kingdom, and we will support the family with their legal claim in the United States.”
[ad_2]