Yes. Even when they kill someone.
IIRC she left the country. The locals wanted to prosecute her. I am not sure she had immunity to shield her from that prosecution which is why she left the country so they could not get her.
The locals also wanted a pony. Doesn’t mean they get what they want. The law wins out.
Are you called Whack-a-mole because no matter how many times your question is answered you just pop up again asking the same thing?
I think you are the first person to note that.
Have a cookie.
Hey, if you make a habit of doing it…
They didn’t get to because she was not subject to their jurisdiction.
I don’t think that is how it worked out.
I think she bolted and they could not get her back to face prosecution.
I do not recall her staying where she was and local law enforcement just not doing anything.
If she was protected she need not have run.
She did. The host country doesn’t have the option of ignoring diplomatic immunity unless the sending country agrees to remove it. The US wasn’t going to do so, and so there’s no way she was going to be prosecuted. The only recourse the host country has to declare them persona non grata and send them home. Her leaving just accelerated the process.
Why did she run?
Is the spouse of a diplomat afforded the same protections as the diplomat? How far down does it go? Kids? Grandkids? Aunts and uncles? How many have immunity?
I thought only the diplomat gets immunity.
As this article on the topic of diplomatic immunity notes:
The US and UK have an extradition treaty. If she weren’t shielded by diplomatic immunity, she would have been extradited long ago. It’s not like there are any other oddities about the case, like a lack of dual criminality.
Panic? Concern that the U.S. might have waived her diplomatic immunity? She would have had legal protection, due to her status as the wife of a diplomat, unless the U.S. decided to waive her immunity, which can and does happen (though, as I noted above, it happens very infrequently).
Also, people don’t always act rationally, particularly in that sort of situation.
From what I recall, she was ordered home by the US. They didn’t want her there causing a bigger brouhaha than was necessary.
This is really getting off the topic, but the Washington Post article I linked to above seems to indicate that she may have been working for the intelligence community, which could have put her diplomatic immunity in doubt.
Please stop explaining to us how little you know of the topic. This is FQ, if you don’t know something, let people who do (that’s not really me, TBH) explain it to you. If you are an expert and have a different interpretation of the law, have at it.
If you had done the same as she was accused of doing what do you think would have happened to you?
It seems the family get immunity too:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/758650
BUT:
The immunity does not extend outside of formal duties.
I’d have been charged under whatever statute applies to negligent driving causing death in the UK. If I’d fled back to Canada, they’d have requested extradition and it would have been granted. What on earth does that have to do with anything? I’m not working for the Canadian embassy.
If I were working for the embassy, in a role that conferred diplomatic immunity, then I expect there would have been discussions between Her Majesty’s Government and Her Majesty’s Government, and there’s a good chance that either Her Majesty’s Government would have waived privilege so that Her Majesty’s Government could bring charges against me, or failing that Her Majesty’s Government would have brought charges against me itself, with the assistance of the Crown Prosecutors in the employ of Her Majesty’s Government.
You have no idea how much fun it was to write that paragraph.