[Political Interest]

Harry Dunn's parents have answered questions from the press in New York.

[Drlee]

OK.

So this is a tragic accident.

Last year 1,792 people in the UK died in traffic accidents. 1.25 million worldwide if we are to believe the google search. In 2014 almost 17,000 hit and run accidents occurred in the UK. 5,000 in London last year.

So is the story here that this is some kind of unique occurrence in the UK? Worthy of New York Times video and print coverage? No. It is a fairly commonplace experience in the world.

So what makes this a story is that there was the wife of a diplomat who left the country claiming immunity. The posting of grieving parents and incensed people is just tacky. IF Her Majesty's government has a problem with the way this played out they can change the rules within the UK. They can petition the US Government to give access to this person for either prosecution or civil action. They may or may not get the answer they want.

As has been said, this is hardly a new situation. Either we have diplomatic immunity or we do not. Crying parents do not change the situation at all. They just sell stuff that advertisers want to sell. I, for one, have decided that taken as a whole, diplomatic immunity is a good thing. But we have to remember. It is the country whose diplomat is involved that invokes immunity. It is not an automatic nor irrevocable thing.

Final thought. Should the families of diplomats even be living overseas? I could make a good case for a no on that. It would be sad for the families to be separated but soldiers suffer this frequently. So the third option is to have diplomats and staff serve at US embassies without their families? That would solve problems like this. But at the end of the day it would just be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. This is a very rare occurrence. As tragic as it is, and it is tragic, it hardly merits the coverage it is getting.

[skinster]

^ A hit and run that results in death is no big deal .

The only reason this is getting the play it is is because of the status of the person involved. And how she's managed to get away with murder (so far).

I doubt you'd be downplaying this if the victim was your wife.

[Rancid]

I don't understand what the dangerous precedent is if this woman is brought back to the UK for investigation/prosecution for committing a crime.

[Sivad]

I don't understand what the dangerous precedent is if this woman is brought back to the UK for investigation/prosecution for committing a crime.

There is no dangerous precedent, diplomatic immunity has been waived many times before.

[Rancid]

There is no dangerous precedent, diplomatic immunity has been waived many times before.

Yea, I guess I don't understand why @BigSteve and @Drlee think it should not be waived.

[Patrickov]

OK.

So this is a tragic accident.

Last year 1,792 people in the UK died in traffic accidents. 1.25 million worldwide if we are to believe the google search. In 2014 almost 17,000 hit and run accidents occurred in the UK. 5,000 in London last year.

So is the story here that this is some kind of unique occurrence in the UK? Worthy of New York Times video and print coverage? No. It is a fairly commonplace experience in the world.

So what makes this a story is that there was the wife of a diplomat who left the country claiming immunity. The posting of grieving parents and incensed people is just tacky. IF Her Majesty's government has a problem with the way this played out they can change the rules within the UK. They can petition the US Government to give access to this person for either prosecution or civil action. They may or may not get the answer they want.

As has been said, this is hardly a new situation. Either we have diplomatic immunity or we do not. Crying parents do not change the situation at all. They just sell stuff that advertisers want to sell. I, for one, have decided that taken as a whole, diplomatic immunity is a good thing. But we have to remember. It is the country whose diplomat is involved that invokes immunity. It is not an automatic nor irrevocable thing.

Final thought. Should the families of diplomats even be living overseas? I could make a good case for a no on that. It would be sad for the families to be separated but soldiers suffer this frequently. So the third option is to have diplomats and staff serve at US embassies without their families? That would solve problems like this. But at the end of the day it would just be a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. This is a very rare occurrence. As tragic as it is, and it is tragic, it hardly merits the coverage it is getting.

1. The person in concern is suspected of hit and run which, if confirmed, is a crime. It stops being simply a tragic accident the moment the accident-causing driver left the scene in an unauthorised manner.

2. As far as it's presented, the UK has been asking the US to waive the immunity of the accident-causing driver, but did not breach the rule by taking concrete actions unilaterally. As far as I observe, most ladies and gentlemen discussing here also agree that the US, no matter what, should have the final say.

3. Another thing that might worth coverage is that the US indeed had a similar situation in reverse, and they successfully asked the other nation (Georgia) waive the immunity of the wrongdoer. If the US fails to do the same here (although they are fully entitled not to), some US haters will probably jump and accuse the US for double-standard / hypocrisy / selfishness.

[BigSteve]

^ A hit and run that results in death is no big deal .

That's not what he said at all. He said it's not uncommon. Guess what? It's not...

The only reason this is getting the play it is is because of the status of the person involved. And how she's managed to get away with murder (so far).

There has been no murder here, so please spare us your drama...

I doubt you'd be downplaying this if the victim was your wife.

Again, he's not downplayed it. It was an accident. Accidents happen. In this particular case, an international agreement; one which was agreed to by the UK, by the way, allowed this woman to leave the country, and to do so in an absolutely legal fashion...

[BigSteve]

Yea, I guess I don't understand why @BigSteve and @Drlee think it should not be waived.

I was pretty clear as to why I don't think it should be.

The fact that it's been waived in the past in no way means it's the right thing to do...

[Rancid]

I was pretty clear as to why I don't think it should be.

It wasn't clear to me. Maybe I missed the reason.

[BigSteve]

It wasn't clear to me. Maybe I missed the reason.

Because I believe, if we're going to have it, it should be absolute.

And, to be clear, I don't believe we should have it...

[Rancid]

And, to be clear, I don't believe we should have it...

I understand this point.

Because I believe, if we're going to have it, it should be absolute.

Why?

[BigSteve]

Why?

Because if it's not absolute it offers no real protection...

[Rancid]

Because if it's not absolute it offers no real protection...

Even if the crime is unconnected to diplomatic roles?

[Nonsense]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/05/us-diplomats-wife-claims-immunity-leaves-uk-afterfatal-road/

If she is any sort of person she will return to the UK and present herself to face justice.

This is an appalling misuse of diplomatic privileges.

The UK government should press Washington on this issue but of course they won't.

Apparently, she did not have diplomatic immunity?, for which there are rules under international law that apply to all countries.

Secondly, in any country, you are expected to abide by all of the laws in that country, no matter what your status.

You have to exchange personal name's, addresses with the other person if you are the driver, along with car insurance details in the event of injury's, also the owner of the vehicle's name & address even if that is yourself).
Additionally, you should take details, such as location, time of incident, along with brief details of what happened & report any injuries to oneself, passengers, or other vehicle occupant's.

If, I assume, she 'fled' the scene, without compying with the legal requirements as a driver involved in an injurious road traffic accident,then, he\she must report the incident, in person, as soon as possible within 24 hours, that does not entitle you to leave it for 24 hours before reporting the incident.

You then have seven days in which to produce, in person, at a police station, evidence of the insured person's insurance policy of the vehicle involved in the RTA.

It is an offence to not report an RTA where details have not been exchanged, within 24 hours,but, primarily asap & in a case of injury, it is a criminal offence not to do these things.
In addition to failing to produce car insurance details,of which, if not available, the person is usually given 7 days to provide that evidence in person, failure of which, can result in 6 months imprisonment being imposed, in addition to any other charges arising from the incident.

In this case,where a fatality occurred, as a result of a RTA, the police should have applied for a waiver of immunity, in order that the alleged 'offender' could be cautioned that a prosecution could follow from their actions in the incident, they would then be subjected to the same rights as any other person in that situation in that particular country.

These privileges that diplomats excercise, in my opinion, should not extend to personal actions outside of their legal diplomatic duties brief, a case in point, is that of Jamal KHASHOGGI in the Saudi Consulate in Istambul.

Only minor offences should be allowed in cases where a diplomat or his family are excercising their rights under the Geneva Convention, in addition to actual diplomatic or consular activities, for which, in the case of America, there are 'enhanced' rights under the Consular Convention, agreed between certain countries with each other.
In this case, I am not certain that America, any more than Russia would comply with a waiver request, but would leave it to the individual's conscience to instigate any step to meeting their responsibilities.

If they do not, no matter, at the end of the day, that person's life,possibly, their career, is tarnished, along with the reputation of themselves & the image of their home country.

[BigSteve]

Even if the crime is unconnected to diplomatic roles?

Well, considering we don't want our diplomats and their families to commit crimes while performing their diplomatic duties, yes, even if it's unconnected...

[late]

Nothing is absolute.

We've pissed England off over the last couple years, and the optics of a new abuse of our relationship would further damage things.

There is no sane reason to end diplomatic immunity, or to regard it as absolute. There is a reason Lady Justice carries scales. It is to weigh the truth of a case, and strike a balance.

As if it wasn't complicated enough, extradition would add another layer of complexity, and take considerable time to do.

I would be vaguely curious to see what a lawyer had to say, that worked this part of international law.

But right now, I don't have enough information to say much.

[BigSteve]

I would be vaguely curious to see what a lawyer had to say, that worked this part of international law.

I would have to say that I'm quite comfortable in my belief that more than a few international law attorneys were involved in drafting the constructs of diplomatic immunity...

[Nonsense]

I would have to say that I'm quite comfortable in my belief that more than a few international law attorneys were involved in drafting the constructs of diplomatic immunity...

No doubt with an eye on the 'get-out-of-jail' clause embedded into that law.

[late]

I would have to say that I'm quite comfortable in my belief that more than a few international law attorneys were involved in drafting the constructs of diplomatic immunity...

comedy gold like that is why I come here.. That raises your previous comments from silly to farcical. Underlying all that is the reality is that there isn't much enforcement in international law.

This sort of thing interests me not at all. I just know there is a web of tradition, and custom, underlying diplomatic relationships. It's complicated.

So while I won't go looking for it, it's quite possible I will stumble across someone informed and competent. And if I do, I will post it.