US diplomat's wife kills UK teenager, claims diplomatic immunity

[puzzlegal]

@asahi

…So the takeaway is that when an American can’t follow Britain’s rules, Britain should just change its rules. Christ, what an attitude.

No, the takeaway is that this incident has publicized what is likely a significant risk to life and limb in the UK, and that is something the UK might want to deal with. The US should probably have a similr waiting period for people coming here who are licensed in the UK, Japan, and other places where people drive on the other side of the road.

@Ravenman

So are those who are saying that the driver should not have her immunity waived also arguing that the UK justice system is unfair?

I am not arguing that. I have a very high regard for the UK justice system. I think it is one of the best in the world. (And better than the US system.)

@asahi

Right, like gross negligence, which is still an accident and still something that otherwise good people do, and still something that lands otherwise ‘good’ people in prison. The fact that they were never charged isn’t material; it’s that they can be charged but pragmatic decisions were made about how best to use the resources of the criminal justice system.

Going back to the case in question, if this is just a case of an “accident,” an “oops,” then she shouldn’t have fled, right? She fled because she knew that her accident might led to a criminal conviction.

Pragmtism argues against charging someone with diplomatic immunity. Especially such a person who is no longer in the country. And for the nth time, it seems she didn’t “flee”, she was instructed to leave by her consulate. She really didn’t have a choice about that.

@SanVito

This didn’t happen in America. This happened in a country with one of the safest (and yet most congested) road systems in the world…

fyi, safety (at least, risk of dying) is correlated with congestion. In congested traffic people drive slower, and are far less likely to kill each other. It is harder to coax data out of the Fatal Accident Reporting System

Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) | NHTSA

than it used to be, but here you can find detailed info on every vehicular fatality reported to the police in the US. And if you compare that to the number of registered vehicles, total population, or miles driven by state, you will see a striking pattern in which the less densely populated states have much higher vehicle fatality rates than the states where most drivers drive in congested conditions.

Now, fender-benders do tend to be positively correlated with congestion. But that’s not a stat people often compare, unless you happen to be in the auto insurance industry. (I am.)

[Ravenman]

@puzzlegal

I am not arguing that. I have a very high regard for the UK justice system. I think it is one of the best in the world. (And better than the US system.)

If that is the case, then why shouldn’t the U.S. waive immunity and let the facts and the process play out as they may?

And for the nth time, it seems she didn’t “flee”, she was instructed to leave by her consulate. She really didn’t have a choice about that.

While I recognize that some blame the driver for fleeing, I think it’s a fairer criticism that the United States Government ordered her to flee and then rejected a reasonable request to waive her immunity, and that the rejection of the waiver is not justified.

[PatrickLondon]

@CarnalK

The CPS filed charges, those are public. Are you saying a lack of any alcohol related charges is an abundance of discretion?

No, I’m saying that the fact that the police and prosecutors don’t allege anything relating to alcohol doesn’t decide the issue. What would, would be hearing and testing the evidence offered by both sides in the proper court, not the court of social or any other media.

Some posts upthread seem to be resting on the assumption that to proceed to a court case requires a prior hearing by public opinion mediated only by random news reports and online gossip, rather the normal legal processes.

[CarnalK]

We’re not judging a court case. We’re discussing whether immunity should be waived, which is done purely on some guy’s discretion. If alcohol was involved, then the CPS blew it by not listing it as a charge if they wanted to convince the State Department to waive immunity.

[GreenWyvern]

Drunk driving (if any) is fully included in the charge of “dangerous driving”. There doesn’t need to be a separate charge.

Cite:

"The Panel sets out a series of aggravating and mitigating factors. These are more extensive than those that were set out in Boswell. We adopt them but they stress that should not be regarded as an exhaustive statement of the factors. In addition it is important to appreciate that the significance of the factors can differ. There can be cases with three or more aggravating factors, which are not as serious as a case providing a bad example of one factor. They are as follows:

**Aggravating Factors **

*Highly culpable standard of driving at time of offence*

(a) the consumption of drugs (including legal medication known to cause drowsiness) or of alcohol, ranging from a couple of drinks to a 'motorised pub crawl'

(b) greatly excessive speed; racing; competitive driving against another vehicle; 'showing off'

(c) disregard of warnings from fellow passengers

(d) a prolonged, persistent and deliberate course of very bad driving

(e) aggressive driving (such as driving much too close to the vehicle in front, persistent inappropriate attempts to overtake, or cutting in after overtaking)

(f) driving while the driver's attention is avoidably distracted, e.g. by reading or by use of a mobile phone (especially if hand-held)

(g) driving when knowingly suffering from a medical condition which significantly impairs the offender's driving skills

(h) driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest

(i) driving a poorly maintained or dangerously loaded vehicle, especially where this has been motivated by commercial concerns

We shall begin by forcefully emphasising that there must be no doubt and there should indeed now be very few people who still entertain the slightest doubt, that where death arises from a road traffic accident caused when the driver has voluntarily consumed excess alcohol, in culpability terms this is and should be equated with causing death by dangerous driving.

An example of such a case is Noble [2003] 1 CAR (S) 312. Noble was convicted of six offences of causing death by dangerous driving, arising out of a single incident. He spent the afternoon drinking with friends, and admitted to having drunk twelve pints of lager, one pint of mixed lager and cider and two Bacardi Breezers. He had participated in a “motorised pub crawl”. He drove at high speed, and eventually, because of speed, lost control of his vehicle. It struck a stone wall on the opposite side of the carriageway, and then continued down the wrong side of the road, until it toppled over on to its side and struck an oncoming vehicle. Three passengers in Noble’s car were killed. Three people travelling in the car with which he collided were also killed.

[CarnalK]

Driving a vehicle while intoxicated is a crime all on its own as well. Are you saying that they wouldn’t be charged with both crimes?

[Kovitlac]

@GreenWyvern

I’m sure you’re right, Puzzlegal.

Now let’s suppose, for example, some Pakistani guy, stationed in the United States working for the Pakistani government, and with dubious/questionable diplomatic status, killed an innocent young American girl in a road accident - driving on the wrong side of the road + some other unreleased circumstances. Then he fled the country claiming diplomatic immunity, rather than face a charge of dangerous driving in a US court, and Pakistan refused to extradite him.

You don’t really have to ‘suppose’. Rapes and other acts of sexual assault by foreign diplomats are frequently let go in the US. I honestly find that more appalling than this case, because a rape isn’t accidental, while this one is tragic (don’t get me wrong - it’s sad in general and horrific for the family), but completely accidental.

Personally, I feel diplomatic immunity shouldn’t really be a thing. It’s one thing to get a parking ticket waved because, hey, you’re in a different country with different laws and rules and it can be easy to make a simple mistake. I get that. But murder, rape, assault - these are not things you accidentally trip and fall into. While I do feel it’s too late for this specific case, I would absolutely support diplomatic immunity being altered in the future. It’s abused way too much, as it is.

[GreenWyvern]

@CarnalK

Driving a vehicle while intoxicated is a crime all on its own as well. Are you saying that they wouldn’t be charged with both crimes?

Yes. If you can find any counter-examples, please cite them.

[puzzlegal]

@Ravenman

If that is the case, then why shouldn’t the U.S. waive immunity and let the facts and the process play out as they may?

While I recognize that some blame the driver for fleeing, I think it’s a fairer criticism that the United States Government ordered her to flee and then rejected a reasonable request to waive her immunity, and that the rejection of the waiver is not justified.

I think there’s a lot more merit to the criticism of the US and its decisions in this case than there is to criticism of her actions following the death. I think the US acted in the normal way, not extraordinarily, but I can see merit to arguing that how we execute diplomatic immunity could be improved. But, since I believe the US acted in the normal way, I am not especially sympathetic to “THIS IS AN OUTRAGE THAT MUST BE FIXED RETROACTIVELY.”

[CarnalK]

@GreenWyvern

Yes. If you can find any counter-examples, please cite them.

I’m Canadian and there’s no doubt both charges would have been layed here and little likelihood that the lesser charge would get mentioned in the newspaper. So I’m not sure how I can really cite that without more research resources than I got. Guess that means you’re right? I guess?

[DrDeth]

@Ravenman

If that is the case, then why shouldn’t the U.S. waive immunity and let the facts and the process play out as they may?
…

Because it has now gotten into a politically motivated and media shitstorm witchhunt, and she cant possibly get a fair trial and sentence.
*
That’s why. *

[GreenWyvern]

@CarnalK

I’m Canadian and there’s no doubt both charges would have been layed here and little likelihood that the lesser charge would get mentioned in the newspaper. So I’m not sure how I can really cite that without more research resources than I got. Guess that means you’re right? I guess?

Okay, here’s a cite for you, from the Crown Prosecution Service official Road Traffic Charging Guidelines 2019:

It is not necessary to add a further charge relating to drink/driving when the defendant is charged with causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink/drugs, because a guilty verdict to the relevant drink/drive offence can be returned by the jury under the statutory provisions.

This is also true of the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving. …
**Relationship between section 1 and section 3A of the RTA 1988 **

Offences under s.1 RTA 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving) and s.3A RTA 1988 (causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink/drugs) carry the same maximum penalty, so the choice of either charge will not inhibit the sentencing powers of the court. …

The consumption of alcohol is an aggravating feature within the definition of section 3A. The consumption of alcohol is not part of the definition of section 1 but may be treated as an aggravating feature in appropriate cases. See the SGC DefinitiveGuideline.

Where the offence of s.1 RTA 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving) can be proved, it should be charged.

This seems to me to be saying that you should use the charge of “causing death by dangerous driving” in preference to the charge of “causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink/drugs” if you can.

Either way, there shouldn’t be a separate charge relating to drink/driving, because it’s included in either of those charges.

[GreenWyvern]

@DrDeth

Because it has now gotten into a politically motivated and media shitstorm witchhunt, and she cant possibly get a fair trial and sentence.
*
That’s why. *

So no trial should ever be held in any case where there has been a lot of discussion in the media?

If any strong feelings have been expressed in the media, the accused should just be allowed to go free?

It seems like this would apply to an awful lot of cases.

Anyway, this shows that the British system of not releasing facts/evidence to the media before a trial, in order to ensure fairness, is correct.

[DrDeth]

@GreenWyvern

So no trial should ever be held in any case where there has been a lot of discussion in the media?

If any strong feelings have been expressed in the media, the accused should just be allowed to go free?

It seems like this would apply to an awful lot of cases.

Anyway, this shows that the British system of not releasing facts/evidence to the media before a trial, in order to ensure fairness, is correct.

No, no trial should be held as *she has diplomatic immunity. *

You asked “then why shouldn’t the U.S. waive immunity and let the facts and the process play out as they may?” Dont move the goalposts. She cant get a fair trail so the uSA should not waive immunity.

They have released plenty.

[Ravenman]

@DrDeth

You asked “then why shouldn’t the U.S. waive immunity and let the facts and the process play out as they may?”

They have released plenty.

The facts have not played out in any legal process, as that was short-circuited (as allowed by law) by the immunity. Who are you trying to kid in asserting that just because some facts are out there, that a legal process has taken place?

What a joke.

Because it has now gotten into a politically motivated and media shitstorm witchhunt, and she cant possibly get a fair trial and sentence.

That’s why.

Some words can be saved with this line of argument by simply writing:

“Because fuck you, that’s why.”

[DrDeth]

@Ravenman

The facts have not played out in any legal process, as that was short-circuited (as allowed by law) by the immunity. Who are you trying to kid in asserting that just because some facts are out there, that a legal process has taken place?

…

Where did i claim a “legal process” had occurred?

Other than Diplomatic Immunity which is a form of legal process, of course.

Are you claiming she could get a fair trial and sentencing?* It is to laugh. *

[Melbourne]

@DrDeth

Where did i claim a “legal process” had occurred?

Other than Diplomatic Immunity which is a form of legal process, of course.

Are you claiming she could get a fair trial and sentencing?* It is to laugh. *

It is notoriously difficult for foreigners to get a fair trial in any country. But in this case, she speaks English like it was her native language, and is in a position to get and understand good legal advice.

I can understand the suggestion that no foreigner should be put to trial in the USA. Is that what you are suggesting? Because that is an interesting suggestion that could be argued.

On the other hand, if you are suggesting that this woman would get a particularly unfair trial in the UK, well,

it is to laugh.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@CarnalK

You’re right. If you strip both stories of all detail, they are exactly the same. Then we can pretend a drunken joy ride in the middle of the city is the same as forgetting what side of the road you’re supposed to be on.

If only there was some sort of forum where the details of a case could be evaluated to ascertain if there had been some sort of wrongdoing.

[Gary_Kumquat]

@DrDeth

No, no trial should be held as *she has diplomatic immunity. *

So you also hold that the US was wrong to have requested Gueorgui Makharadze’s diplomatic immunity be waived, and trying him in a court of law?

[CarnalK]

@Gary_Kumquat

If only there was some sort of forum where the details of a case could be evaluated to ascertain if there had been some sort of wrongdoing.

Golly, that’s clever.

I’m curious, do you have a good example of the UK waiving diplomatic immunity for one of its own? I figure that in the last 60 years, a Brit diplomat has crossed a line somewhere, no? I ask only to weigh how much of this is American “arrogance” rather than standard practice, with the Brits standing in as the most humble country on the planet.