Making a Fuss seems to pay off but will there ever be an end to it?

[StuartO]

I sympathise with the Dunn parents for their loss of their son in an RTA but I find it difficult to understand what their expectations are.

 

They have said they want "justice" for their son but what does that mean? What, if anything, will make them content? Do they want a conviction and punishment of the car driver and will nothing less satisfy them? Do they have to be happy with the sentence handed down? Do they feel that relatives of RTA victims should always be entitled to dictate things in the way they seem to want to do?

 

They have already met the Foreign Secretary and the President of the US and they were offered a reconciliation with the woman driver but they refused that. The mother is also reported to have refused the meeting which the others had with the Home Sectretary at which they were presumably given assurances about an application to the US for extradition bbeing made. They are also reported to be likely to meet the Prime Minister at some stage. Is this level of attention likely to become and entitlement to any relatives of those killed in an RTA or was this just a consequence of the timing - our politicians being in the middle of an Election Campaign, they had to be seen to be sympathetic?

 

The controversial bit was of course that Diplomatic Immunity was granted (or understood by the US as having been granted) to US Intelligence Services Personell and their families serving in UK, even though they were operating a spying facility rather than being diplomats in the normal, diplomatic service, sort of way. And the Americans, unsurprisingly given their reputation for guarding their people, flew the driver out of the Country pretty smartly. The bird having flown, it seems pretty unlikely that she will ever return to UK. I fear the Dunn family are going ultimately going to end up disappointed, even if they sue in American civil courts for damages for their loss. Look what happened to the Brit who sued the Tesla guy.

 

Presumably there is a continuing UK strategic interest in hosting a US spying facility, which the US needs to have in UK because it's in the right place to do the particular sort of spying it does. There may be enough UK interest and enough US determination to protect their people for this arrangement to continue.

 

I suspect that the Dunn family is ultimately going to be disappointed; the charge of causing death by dangerous driving is perhaps too serious an offence to secure a conviction, even if the a trial goes ahead, maybe in the accused's absence. Is there any evidence to suggest that the woman driver was doing anything other than making the simple, forgiveable mistake of driving out of the base by turning on to the wrong carriageway on a traffic-free road, which therefore gave her no reminder to keep left? Was she being distracted by her children? Was she being careless in any other way than setting off on to the RH side of the road, as she would do at home? How fast was she going at impact? It strikes me there might be lots of scope for arguing that she made an understandable mistake, encouraged to do so by the lack of road signage reminding her to drive on the left. It's a mistake I've made several time when driving abroad, usually when I'm pulling out onto a road when there no traffic and no other reason to remind you to keep right.

 

And how fast was the 19 year old motorcyclist riding a sports bike doing? The TV coverage seems to suggest the collision occured on a relatively shallow bend. And motorcyclist are supposed to ride at a speed which would allow them to stop in the distance they can see to be safe. If the rider was approaching a LH bend and correctly positioned on the road to oimise his view ahead, he would have had the option to swerve to the right when he saw a car in front of him - was there any evidence of braking or evasive steering?

 

Presumably the police investigation of the collision has revealed evidence of serious culpability on the part of the car driver as the basis of the charge the CPS decided to bring.

 

 

 

[Bulletguy]

 

Tbh Stuart i have every sympathy with the Dunn family and cannot for the life of me think how on earth Anne Sacoolas can live with her conscience....i certainly couldn't and her actions in fleeing UK after were disgraceful,

 

Whatever speed Harry Dunn was riding at i'm certain would already have been determined by police at the scene of the accident, but more relevant is Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road and went straight into Dunn on a blind bend/brow so had it not been Harry Dunn on a motorbike, she'd have gone head on into another vehicle. Had it been an HGV it's very likely she'd have become a fatality herself.

 

Yes it wasn't intentional and a mistake anyone used to driving on the other side of the road can make. It's happened to me, twice....once in Switzerland and another time in Poland. Fortunately without collision but it occurs within seconds and each time i reflected back on what had brought it about......carelessness, being in a hurry, and not thinking. I make no excuses.....i was at fault, just as Sacoolas was and still is. Nobody else. She should face up to what she's done.

 

This US tourist who killed an 83 year old lady in Scotland in an identical accident by driving on the wrong side was given just 500 hours community service. Hardly justice imo but at least she faced up to the consequences of her actions.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-49972773

[jumpstart]

Quite agree ,she needs to be persued for justice to be done. Various people have been extradited to the US and imprisoned after trial. The same process should be carried out here.

[StuartO]

The point I was trying to make, perhaps not very well, is that I smell tokenism at play here - i.e. our politicians know full well that a charge of dangerous driving will not stick and they are just going through the motions so as to appear to be sympathetic to the aggrieved family. (I also wonder whether there is a newspaper supporting the family behind the scenes with legal expenses in return for exclusivity in due course; how otherwise could they posssibly afford to do what they are doing?)

 

A jury has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver was doing something she knew at the time was dangerous - that there is what the lawyers call "mens rea", i.e. the intention to commit the crime as well as the act of doing it. Wouldn't it be more realistic (and more proportionate) to charge her with the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving?

[StuartO]

The other point I haven't made very well is that seems to me to be a tale of two women, both of whose lives are in process of being completely wrecked by these events and I feel equally sorry for both of them.

 

My criticism is of the politicians who have allowed it all to escalate and (if there is one) the newspaper which is funding the Dunn family in the expectation of getting a good story, regardless of how damaged either of the two women end up.

[colin]

StuartO - 2019-12-22 5:42 PM

 

A jury has to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the car driver was doing something she knew at the time was dangerous - that there is what the lawyers call "mens rea", i.e. the intention to commit the crime as well as the act of doing it. Wouldn't it be more realistic (and more proportionate) to charge her with the lesser offence of causing death by careless driving?

 

Your interpretation of 'dangerous driving' is incorrect, they have to find that what she was doing was "below the expected level of a careful and competent driver"

p.s. I should also point out that the charge is inline with the equivalent US laws, which AFAIK is why that charge has been made.

[Bulletguy]

 

I'm not sure the charge of death by dangerous driving is correct though the CPS must have their reasons for it. Personally i'd have thought 'death by careless driving' more fitting and certainly easier to convict. It's a fine line between the two; https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging

 

However Sacoolas has made a rod for her own back and may well find herself unable to set foot in UK in the future. At the time of the accident she had her 12 year old son in the car with her which makes her 'example' of parenting all the more difficult to comprehend.

 

She should return and face the charges but appears to be devoid of any remorse and responsibility altogether,

[StuartO]

Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 9:52 PM .... However Sacoolas has made a rod for her own back and may well find herself unable to set foot in UK in the future. At the time of the accident she had her 12 year old son in the car with her which makes her 'example' of parenting all the more difficult to comprehend.

 

She should return and face the charges but appears to be devoid of any remorse and responsibility altogether,

 

On what basis have you concluded that she is "devoid of any remorse or responsibility"? The coverage I have seen seems to suggest quite strongly that she is far from remorseless or being in any way irresponsible.

 

I doubt she had any say in whether or when she returned to the States; her husband is a serving officer and both she and him would surely have been told to get on the aeroplane after those in charge decided to solve their problem by quickly removing the pair of them from UK. Removing the Sacoolases from UK didn't solve the problem of course, and nor did Donald Trump solve the problem by inviting the Dunn family into the White House to meet Mrs Sacoolas, who was at the very least brave and committed enough to resolution to be waiting in the room next door.

 

I think the legal process will now be allowed to play out so that the politicians can say it has done so and they can do nothing more. But the US authorities will say that the charge of dangeroud driving is disproportionate and unsupported by the evidence and that Mrs Sacoolas cannot possibly receive a fair trial after all the hysteria and publicity, so extradition cannot be granted. The Sacoolas family will have to be careful not to travel to or through the UK for the forseeable future. The Dunn family will eventually be unsuccessful in their civil actions in the states and have to accept this, no matter how much of a fuss they make and neither Harry Dunn's mother nor MrsSacoolas will ever really get over the episode.

[747]

Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 9:52 PM

 

 

 

However Sacoolas has made a rod for her own back and may well find herself unable to set foot in UK in the future.

 

Or indeed many other countries with reciprocal arrangements with the UK.

[Bulletguy]

StuartO - 2019-12-23 8:09 AM

 

Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 9:52 PM .... However Sacoolas has made a rod for her own back and may well find herself unable to set foot in UK in the future. At the time of the accident she had her 12 year old son in the car with her which makes her 'example' of parenting all the more difficult to comprehend.

 

She should return and face the charges but appears to be devoid of any remorse and responsibility altogether,

 

On what basis have you concluded that she is "devoid of any remorse or responsibility"? The coverage I have seen seems to suggest quite strongly that she is far from remorseless or being in any way irresponsible.

 

I doubt she had any say in whether or when she returned to the States; her husband is a serving officer and both she and him would surely have been told to get on the aeroplane after those in charge decided to solve their problem by quickly removing the pair of them from UK. Removing the Sacoolases from UK didn't solve the problem of course, and nor did Donald Trump solve the problem by inviting the Dunn family into the White House to meet Mrs Sacoolas, who was at the very least brave and committed enough to resolution to be waiting in the room next door.

 

I think the legal process will now be allowed to play out so that the politicians can say it has done so and they can do nothing more. But the US authorities will say that the charge of dangeroud driving is disproportionate and unsupported by the evidence and that Mrs Sacoolas cannot possibly receive a fair trial after all the hysteria and publicity, so extradition cannot be granted. The Sacoolas family will have to be careful not to travel to or through the UK for the forseeable future. The Dunn family will eventually be unsuccessful in their civil actions in the states and have to accept this, no matter how much of a fuss they make and neither Harry Dunn's mother nor Mrs Sacoolas will ever really get over the episode.

1) Lying to police after telling them she had no plans to leave UK after which she promptly fled. Whoever the "US official" was that advised them to leave most certainly was not (imo) acting in her best interest and more importantly, possibly in breach of UK law. I'm not sure under which country law is applied on US bases in UK, but certainly whilst off base on UK soil then abiding by UK law applies.

 

2) The WH visit sprung unexpectedly on the Dunns, to me smacked of nothing more than a clumsy effort at a hopeful photo opportunity by Trump though i expect they were hoping he would agree to Sacoolas return back to UK.....as happened with a Georgian diplomat who killed a teenage US girl whilst drunk driving. In his case, his country did the decent thing and ordered him back to face US justice where he was sent to prison.

 

Regarding diplomatic status, it's always been questionable over whether Mr Sacoolas actually held it as he wasn't listed as a US diplomat. https://www.insider.com/anne-sacoolas-diplomat-husband-immunity-unclear-expert-2019-10

 

3) I agree i'm not happy with the political 'circus' involved which the media have jumped on though the Dunn family were pretty much backed up a corner. Say and do nothing about it where it eventually disappears altogether and gets forgotten about, or turn to your MP for help which in course finds it's way to the Foreign sec and/or PM.

 

I've watched this case unfold since it happened via both msm and national tv reports and also reading comments on sm, many of which have been posted by US citizens most of whom share the view that Sacoolas should be held to account. Had she stayed and gone through the court procedure this would all be over now and possibly have got off with a light sentence (similar to that other US citizen i linked who mowed down an elderly lady in Scotland by driving on the wrong side of the road). Sacoolas is just making matters a lot worse by her dogged refusal to return.