The police can tell you that, but I don’t think they have any recourse if you leave. They can say a lot of things that aren’t true. And I don’t believe they can confiscate a passport without a court order.
Thank you. It does look like those laws are based on criminal negligence. Here in the US, it is unususal, I think, for serious offenses to be based on anything less than recklessness. Traffic violations can be based on negligence or may be strict liability, but typically crimes require at least a reckless mental state. (There are exceptions.)
So, here, that kind of crash would probably not lead to serious charges unless there was recklessness, which requires a conscious (subjective – actual) disregard of the risk of serious harm. A driver responsible for such a crash would have civil liability for their negligence, but might not have criminal liability unless they had been drinking, knew they were sleepy, or some other additional factor showing recklessness leading up to the crash.
It is perhaps getting close to "how many angels on a pinhead’ territory, but the distinction in the UK is between “careless” and “dangerous” driving. The underlying assumption is that, to be careless, you don’t need to have made a conscious decision to weigh up risks and proceed to ignore them - you ought to have been aware of them anyway, and therefore to allow yourself to [do whatever] is ipso facto “careless”.
Upthread I linked to the sentencing guidelines. It’s relevant to this point to post the link again (AIUI, your concept of “recklessness” would more likely come into play as a factor in sentencing):
Note that, as a consular officer, South Africa (not McAllister himself) could not invoke diplomatic immunity for actions outside his official duties, which duties would certainly not include drug smuggling and murder.
In Canada?
Great to know that next time I’m drunk driving, because I think I’m a great driver when drunk, that the fact I couldn’t have expected a collision mean I should get off easy when I kill someone.
Meanwhile:
Dunn’s parents are not happy, saying that "developments leave us with more questions than answers".
No, because the argument is what a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts known to you would have concluded. You know you have consumed a quantity of alcohol, and a reasonable person would think that quantity of alcohol impairs judgment and a collision is a foreseeable consequence.
For an analogous situation, you’d have to start with somebody who did not know they had alcohol in their system (maybe a gut brewer, or the target of a nasty prank).
What “justice” do they want?
A American Diplomat in prison for five years because of a stupid mistake?
It’s hard to tell. It’s possible that some lawyers have scented the possibility of cash payouts, but that is pure speculation.
I do get a sense that while most people sympathise, they are milking it a bit.
Here, it is common to have a law that specifically says that voluntary intoxication is not a defense. So if you knowingly or voluntarily got drunk and then drove recklessly, you can’t say, well, my judgment was impaired by the alcohol, so I didn’t realize I was creating a risk of serious harm. My jurisdiction has a law like that.
As I think I said in a previous post, I think there would likely be criminal liability in the US if she had been drinking or perhaps if she got behind the wheel knowing she was sleepy – some linked reckless act. But because recklessness requires knowledge of and disregard of the risk, it doesn’t really fit here. If she drove on the wrong side on purpose, she was suicidal or homicidal, and it was intentional conduct. If she was not either of those, then as soon as she realized the risk – that she was on the wrong side of the road – she would have corrected it.
This analogy would be good if she believed she’d be fine driving on the wrong side of the road.
Since she didn’t believe that, this analogy isn’t good.
Probably, their kid back. Which is impossible, and all, but I don’t really blame people for not acting rationally in their circumstances.
Another side to the whole the situation from Private Eye:
“Seeking justice”? I still dont see what “Justice” they are seeking.
The same as would apply to anyone else who didn’t benefit from diplomatic immunity, I would assume.
Presumably they want someone held accountable. Do you think Sacoolas should escape without any consequences? Should she not be financially liable for what is at a minimum her negligence?
The latest news from the BBC: No details yet. Next step will be an extradition application I imagine.
The main argument I’m seeing here is that she didn’t know she was driving on the wrong side of the road. She should still be prosecuted. As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And as they also say, there’s no such thing as an accident. This was completely avoidable if she had taken five minutes to learn the rules of the road in the UK. I can see diplomatic immunity in some cases, but not when your ignorance and carelessness causes a death.
legally, there is such a thing as a accident.
I am sure she knew them.
Hey I almost got a ticket in another state for instinctively making a right turn on red (after stopping) since 99.99% of my driving has been in CA. You drive by instinct and muscle memory.
And that exactly what Diplomatic immunity is for.