Bricker’s staff report on Diplomatic Immunity.
*First and foremost, the diplomat is still covered by the laws of his home country, and may be prosecuted under those laws for any crimes he commits in the host country … To emphasize, under no circumstances is the diplomat free from all legal constraints: even if his host country can’t get him, his home country always can. *
So, USA probably won’t waive immunity for her, but possibly could prosecute her themselves. I hope this is what happens, but somehow I doubt it.
If she signed some promise to return, that could be a charge but I have a hard time believing an unfulfilled promise is “giving a false police statement”.
And here is a great reason why the US should just stick with established policy. You may think a prisoner exchange to help out Johnson and Trump’s approval ratings is a good idea but I don’t.
“Making a false police statement” means falsely accusing someone else of a crime, not just saying something to the police that isn’t true. In England and Wales, it can also mean falsely claiming to have knowledge relevant to a crime.
I am against jail terms for accidents, even if caused by negligence. Even here in the uSA. I only want criminals, people who had criminal intent in jail.
She will likely lose her job. And the USA should write a check.
You need to look up the term ‘reasonably forseeable’ when you consider negligence, negligence can be plenty criminal especially when evaluating the balance between cost, and sacrifice vs the need to ensure the safety of people. There are many cases of negligence that result in death and prison, and thats why courts will determine when this should be the case
How do you know this was an accident?
Do you know if she had any substances in her?
Do you know if she was speeding?
Do you know if she had a driving licence and insurance?
Do you know if she was fit to drive without glasses?
Do you know if she has been given other police warnings for poor driving or speeding?
Do you know if she was using her mobile phone?
In other words, it is not for your personal opinion to judge if an incident is actually an accident, do you believe that we in the UK are somehow not capable of determining this for ourselves and acting accordingly?
We do not pass and enact specific legislation in order to please you, neither does the USA do the same for us, however its reasonable to imagine that we have enough principle in common to have largely similar expectations of our respective legal systems, your criticism of the UK criminal justice system is at the very least uninformed and patronising, its as if you believe we are some third world podunk nation that is unable to meet your exacting requirements
Was there some nefarious purpose behind driving on the wrong side of the road? I doubt she was intending to hurt someone or was deliberately driving on the wrong side for thrills.
I’m ok with people being imprisoned for egregious negligence such as this, but I’d still use the word to describe the crash, rather than force fit the circumstance to a different word.
I may have missed something – was this woman driving on the wrong side of the road for miles? The only thing I saw with specifics of the accident was that it was 400 yards from the base, and the innocent young man just came around a bend when he was struck. I just assumed from that description that the woman had exited the base and driven for a short distance (and of course I have no idea why she would be driving on the wrong side of the road, whether it was her first time on a British road, if she was overtaking someone, if she was intoxicated, or whatever – I 'm not inclined to guess why).
In Washington, DC, when something happens to a car while it’s under the care of a valet parking service, the valet employees are instructed to say that the damage was done by a car with diplomat tags. The police come, they write down the damage, and as soon as they hear “Diplomat Tags” they tear off the sheet and good luck even getting a report for your insurance company. This happened to me in the late 90’s.
Nobody bothers to write a ticket or tow a car with diplomat tags.
Whatever our frustration with the process, it is steeped in necessity and is by no means a mere job benefit. The vast majority of the diplomats and their families take their behavior here very seriously, and treat everyone with the utmost respect.
While no one can give them their son back, I’m certain that the US will reimburse them for whatever damages can be justified under UK law. And I’m certain they will receive the profoundest apologies that this diplomat and his wife can present.
But the US President’s current “Investigate 'em!!” approach to political maneuvering should be all that is needed to defend the necessity of diplomatic immunity.
