She might well have done. Causing death by careless driving could well mean up to 5 years in jail.
But no-one knows until there has been proper investigation including her side of the story.
If a accident can put you in prison for 5 years the justice system is wrong.
And they can get that from a signed statement.
I keep seeing this talking point, here and elsewhere. I don’t get it. Even if immunity is waived, why is it assumed that she would give “her side of the story”? I get that the right to silence isn’t quite as broad as in the USA (sometimes adverse inferences can be drawn, and I don’t think the police are obligated to stop the questioning at the suspect’s request), but I assume it’s still the case that it’s very easy to talk yourself into jail and very hard to talk yourself out of it.
It’s not clear to me what the point of an investigation would be. It seems the major facts aren’t in dispute. She was driving on the wrong side of the road, and had a head-on collision with someone coming the other way. They didn’t see each other due to a crest in the hill.
You’d get the speed from forensic evidence, not from asking the drivers. (skid marks, possibly info in the cars’ black boxes, depending on the age and make it the cars.)
What more is there to investigate? Whether she was drunk? I wouldn’t expect her to admit to that if she wasn’t tested at the scene. Whether the other driver was drunk?
Something else?
1 was this her first time driving in the UK, or had she already been out and about several times?
2 how far had she been driving on the wrong side? Was it a momentary lapse caused by unfamiliar circumstances(e.g. She just came off a roundabout), or had she been driving on the wrong side without noticing for a lengthy period of time?
3 did both she and the young man take evasive action that cancelled each other out, leading to the crash?
4 how much time did she have from seeing the young man to the collision?
5 what evasive action, if any, did she take?
Those are just a few.
This same issue came up in the Assange matter, where some posters kept saying that the Swedish prosecutor should just conduct the interview over the phone.
The problem is that conducting police interviews is an act of a sovereign power. That means that the police of Country A cannot carry out investigations in Country B, even by telephone, without complying with the law of Country B, which normally means the police of Country A have to work with the police of Country B, through mutual legal assiatance treaties. If the British police just call her up in the United States and conduct an interview, they’re in breach of US sovereignty.
Glad to have that cleared up. Didn’t realise you were a judge of the UK Supreme Court. 
She was driving on the incorrect (right) side of the road, which was undoubtedly a violation of English traffic law. There may well have been other traffic laws which were broken, like unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. If there had not been an collision, those might have only been ticketable offenses (had she been, say, pulled over by a police officer who saw her driving on the wrong side of the road), but they still would count as “doing something wrong” and “committing a crime.”
But, she did get into a collision, likely entirely due to violating one or more traffic laws, and another person died as a result. In doing so, she may well have violated one or more additional English laws.
What happened was almost undoubtedly not intentional, but operating a motor vehicle demands that the driver follow the laws of the road. “I didn’t realize I was in violation of a law” or “I forgot that I wasn’t supposed to be doing that” makes it unintentional, but it doesn’t make it innocence, and it doesn’t mean that nothing wrong was done.
They interviewed her at the scene and another time at the station before she left the country. I can’t imagine them missing those questions nor would I think the answers to some of them to be particularly accurate.
It’s my understanding that she had been in the country only 3 weeks. The most obvious answer to what happened is she reverted to habit and just drove on the right when she came out of a turn or something.
The reason messing with diplomatic immunity, making exceptions or having a corps diplomatique version of the UCMJ is that in some countries, police investigations are suspect, and at times the outcome is outright for sale. So, prosecuting based on the findings in the host country becomes problematic if the offense took place in Mexico, or Haiti, or Iraq etc.
excluding certain countries from the diplomatic corps justice scheme, or from waiving immunity would create diplomatic problems, including with a close neighbor. Probing the validity of the host country investigation during trial would do likewise.
And honestly, what difference does it make? I doubt anyone thinks she was driving on the wrong side of the road intentionally. And she can’t be prosecuted. And I’m pretty sure she’s not going back to the UK. So, does it really matter how long she was driving on the wrong side of the road?
I certainly think she did something wrong and a crime was committed. But I don’t see much value in investigating further.
About two weeks.
about 200 yards.
None of these need her personal answers. They can be done in a statement.
I dunno in the UK, but here in California, a traffic violation is not a “crime”. It;s a “infraction”.
And diplomats all over the world ignore traffic laws thousands of times daily.
What on earth are you talking about? Minor traffic violations are indeed infractions, but reckless driving can easily rise to the level of criminal charges.
That’s when reckless driving is charged as a misdemeanor. It can also be charged as a felony in cases where you’re impaired or you kill someone. As I’m not actually a lawyer, I haven’t actually found the clause in California law, but multiple lawyer’s websites turn up on when googling to provide information such as the following:
I find it bizarre that anyone would think that you can’t commit a crime by driving in a reckless or negligent fashion. Arguably this case doesn’t rise to the level of negligence required to constitute reckless driving, but it’s certainly also arguable that it does.
See the link I posted about the Romanian diplomat.
He was prosecuted in Romanian for a crime committed and 8nvestigated in Singapore.
And isn’t the the role of judge and jury to judge the validity of evidence?
If the facts are, as we are given them, that she mistakenly drove some distance [a few hundred yards] on the wrong side of a single carriageway and collided with a young man driving a motorbike, resulting in his death; then she would be unlikely to get jail unless she had previous, or there was some other factor that we are not being told about.
Personally, I think she should have stayed and made a statement to the police so that the wheels of justice could grind. IMHO she would have been given a driving ban and a large fine. Any costs from the victim’s side would be met by her insurance in the normal way.
She did, in fact, speak to the police and answer questions prior to leaving the UK.
Looking at this story play out, I see a couple of recurring memes in general (meaning: does not necessarily apply to any one in this thread):
-
Outrage that the murderer is not severely punished. For these folks I’m not sure there’s anything other than decades-long jail time that will satisfy them.
-
Shock about the existence of diplomatic immunity and what that entails. Diplomatic immunity is nothing new and recalling a holder of such immunity when they do something wrong in their host country is pretty SOP in the world.
I can certainly see that, after just three weeks of being in the UK, she might have reverted to the longstanding habit of driving on the right side of the road, as in the US. There is no indication, so far at least, that she acted with any malice. But a man died, the local police are obligated to investigate, and the US should not obstruct that investigation. The UK is an invaluable ally of ours and we come across as an arrogant, hypocritical superpower when we pull stunts like this.
How else did she get on the wrong side of the road? If she was in control of the car, it was where she intended.
What in the world makes this a “stunt”? Or arrogant and hypocritical? This is a standard application of diplomatic immunity that countries of all levels of power employ.
This. And while it might be shocking or look arrogant to her ex-neighbors, no one in the UK government will have batted an eye. They would expect exactly this, both for her and for a UK diplomat who did the equivalent in the US.