Did I say it didn’t?
No. So what’s wrong with:
?
No, not really.
This will apparently be just a hearing, and in absentia, which in general is held to be a violation of human rights.
Because just the opposite is occurring. Nor will we ever know the facts, as the defendant won’t appear as she has diplomatic immunity.
If the UK stages a sham show trial, and declares her guilty, that will be a travesty of justice.
Doesn’t sound like it…
The BBC article that was linked says she’s not planning to attend. So no, this isn’t a normal zoom hearing.
(or, maybe it says that her lawyer says she won’t attend. Something like that.)
I would guess that diplomatic immunity means she has no obligation to show up, and possibly an obligation to stay away.
One of these things is not like the other. In one case the person is participating in the proceedings and is within the physical jurisdiction of the court (e.g. within the US State that the trial is being held in).
In the other case, they are not.
It does sound like that.
Now yes, if the defendant would appear and testify by zoom, it could be Okay. But her lawyers said they have no such intentions at this time. So, while Zoom hearing can be Okay, that is only if people agree and are Zooming, otherwise it is just a trial in absentia.
Really? Cite? 
Whether she attends via Zoom or not is her free choice. If someone chooses not to turn up in court and argue their case, that’s up to them.
And it’s not ‘just a hearing’, it’s a determination by a magistrate as to how the case will proceed, and what the next step will be.
There are no published statistics for the number of such trials in the Crown
Court. However, in 2004/5, 170,000 (one hundred and seventy thousand)
defendants (15% of all those charged) failed to attend their trial in the
Magistrates Court and the charge was proved in their absence. The
overwhelming majority of these were motoring offences (National Audit
Office 10/02/2006 ‘CPS: Effective Use of Magistrates Courts Hearings’).
Well. this hearing is in a Magistrates Court. I don’t think it will be treated as a usual ‘motoring offence’ for summary justice, but what do I know?
Let’s wait and see, shall we?
It’s too serious and complicated to be tried in a magistrate’s court. It will probably be referred to a higher court.
I’m not sure it is. She is constrained by the US government, which apparently continues to claim diplomatic immunity. If she showed up, she might be subverting that claim.
I am not a lawyer. But i would guess there’s a lot going on here that’s not transparent to the rest of us.
The foreign secretary, Liz Truss, said it was “absolutely not” the end of the fight to get Sacoolas to return to the UK. Speaking to reporters on the train to Washington where she will meet the US president, Joe Biden, Truss said: “We continue to press for justice for Harry.”
She said the prime minister was “very much on the side of the family in their desire to see justice done”. Leadsom said: “All of us in government are working to that end.”
The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, has said the move “amounts to a denial of justice”.
Foreign Secretary Liz Truss tweeted: “Welcome news that Anne Sacoolas will face a UK court. We continue to support the family to get justice for Harry Dunn.”
And no. In order to have a fair hearing/trial, it is the prosecutions job to locate and bring to trial the defendant. That is exactly what a trial in absentia means, which is generally held to be a human rights violation, and it is illegal in the USA, and most of the EU. Also in the UK until 2007, and the status is questionable after that.
Sorry; which one says Ms Sacoolas is guilty?
All of those.
They ain’t saying “want a fair trial” they want JUSTICE FOR HARRY.
Note that the UK refuses to extradite to the USA if the death penalty is on the line as they consider it a violation of human rights. Fair cop, but the USA and most other nations consider a trial in absentia a human rights violation, and the UK is proposing one, all the more reason not to allow extradition. They can’t have it both ways.
None of those politicians care about “justice for Harry” they are just appealing to the mass electorate. This is a relatively minor traffic case in reality.
Your reading comprehension appears a bit lacking. None of those statements say she is guilty, only that a trial should be held to determine guilt.
I think there is a difference between not allowing someone to be present at their trial or not notifying them of their trial a la a star chamber as opposed to Roman Polanski (as an example) choosing not to be extradited and standing at the border going, “Nyah nyah nyah. You can’t catch me.”
Er, what? If the US agreed to extradite there would be no trial in absentia. The US is creating that situation.
So sorry you don’t want justice for the late Harry Dunn. And his family. Or for anybody, really.
And I don’t think your SHOUTING contributes anything.
I guess they should just let the three men who killed Arbery go because “the media” and “politicians” were pretty hostile to them, so they had no chance at a fair trial?
No, that there must be Justice for Harry!! No mention of a fair trial.
Yes, but will the UK agree to extradite killers is the DP is considered? No.
The USA and the UK agreed to give those workers Diplomatic immunity. That was the deal. The UK is creating the situation by making this political.
I would like to see a fair trial, which is impossible now. Not “justice” for any one person, but justice for all.
Indeed, a Judge has to carefully regulate and interview the jurors in such trials to make sure they do not have any preconceived ideas of guilt or innocence. It is like that in ALL Felony US trials. Sometimes they have to change the venue to make sure that happens or go through hundreds of potential jurors. I am surprised you did not know that. Never been on a jury?