Attorneys representing Mr Dunn’s family say a 1995 waiver concurred between the United States and UK suggested administrative and technical personnel at RAF Croughton did not have diplomatic resistance beyond their duties.
Mr Dunn, 19, was killed when his motorcycle crashed into a cars and truck being driven on the wrong side of the roadway by American Anne Sacoolas outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on August 27 last year.
Sacoolas, whose other half Jonathan Sacoolas worked as a technical assistant at the base, left the nation a couple of weeks later on after the US stated she was entitled to diplomatic resistance.
But Sam Wordsworth QC, representing Mr Dunn’s family, has today declared Sacoolas ‘never had any pertinent immunity’.
The 43-year-old was eventually charged with triggering death by harmful driving last December, but an extradition request was declined by the US State Department in January – a choice it later on described as ‘final’.
Documents discovered at today’s hearing likewise revealed a Foreign Workplace authorities predicted that a deadly auto accident including a diplomatic resistance claim would trigger a public scandal 25 years before Mr Dunn’s death.
Harry Dunn, 19, was eliminated when his motorcycle collided with a car outside RAF Croughton
Moms and dads and step-parents of Harry Dunn, (left to right) Charlotte Charles (mom), Bruce Charles (stepfather), Tim Dunn (father) and Tracey Dunn (stepmother) outdoors court
A rundown note sent out to Sir Tony Baldry, then junior FCO minister, in 1995 raised concerns that ‘a mishap including the claim of immunity might make the regional if not nationwide headings.’
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab’s office was warned that the case could trigger some ‘really unpalatable headlines’ 3 days after the August 2019 crash, in a rundown note copied to his personal secretary.
However the Foreign Workplace told Harry Dunn’s household Mr Raab was only made personally knowledgeable about the case after Sacoolas got away justice on September 15th, 19 days after the teen died.
Northamptonshire Cops were also prompted by the Foreign Workplace to delay telling his household that investigators had been avoided from speaking with Sacoolas under caution because the US insisted she maintain diplomatic immunity.
Investigator Inspector Louise Hemmingway said in her statement that the Foreign Office had actually requested the hold-up while they ‘gain agreement on next steps’ after the waiver to her diplomatic immunity was refused.
Harry Dunn’s mother Charlotte Charles saw High Court proceedings from home today, as the hearing was told Sacoolas ‘never had any appropriate resistance’
The FCDO maintains that Ann Sacoolas did have diplomatic immunity as US-UK waiver just applied to staff at RAF Croughton, and not to their family members
Earlier today the Foreign Workplace was accused of keeping police examining the crash that eliminated Harry Dunn in the dark for two weeks over whether the chauffeur had diplomatic immunity.
Mr Dunn’s moms and dads, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, declare the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) wrongly chose Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity and unlawfully blocked Northamptonshire Authorities’s investigation into their son’s death.
Ms Charles and Mr Dunn at first likewise took legal action versus Northamptonshire Authorities however that claim was dropped in July, with the family’s spokesperson stating the force had actually been ‘absolved of any blame’.
Ms Charles listened fromhome in Oxfordshire as she heard the UK and United States concurred in 1995 that administrative and technical personnel at RAF Croughton would have their immunity waives in relation to ‘acts carried out outside the course of their tasks’
In 1995, the UK consented to an American request to consist of personnel at RAF Croughton on the diplomatic list, but asked the United States to waive the resistance of administrative and technical personnel in relation to ‘acts performed outside the course of their duties’.
The FCDO says that waiver only used to staff at RAF Croughton and not their member of the family, indicating Anne Sacoolas did have immunity at the time of the crash.
However, at a remote hearing on Wednesday, Sam Wordsworth QC – representing Ms Charles and Mr Dunn – stated Sacoolas had ‘no responsibilities at all’ at the base and therefore ‘never ever had any pertinent resistance for the US to waive’.
At a remote hearing on Wednesday, Geoffrey Robertson QC stated the FCDO ‘took upon itself the authority to resolve the question of immunity and eventually and unlawfully decided to accept the United States embassy’s choice that Anne Sacoolas had resistance’.
He said in written submissions that choice ‘blocked the authorities by avoiding any effective more development in its investigation into Harry’s death and likely prosecution of Anne Sacoolas’.
Mr Robertson argued the FCDO ‘tacitly accepted the Sacoolas family’s departure from the UK’, describing a text sent to a United States embassy authorities on September 14 2019 – a day before Sacoolas and her family left the UK.
Anne Sacoolas left England after the crash last August and an extradition has actually been turned down
The message read: ‘I believe that now the choice has actually been taken not to waive (resistance), there’s very little mileage in us asking you to keep the family here.
‘ It’s obviously not us approving of their departure but I think you ought to have the ability to put them on the next flight out.’
The FCDO argues Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity on the basis of an arrangement reached with the United States embassy more than twenty years back.
In 1995, the UK consented to an American demand to consist of staff at RAF Croughton on the diplomatic list, but asked the United States to waive the immunity of administrative and technical personnel in relation to ‘acts performed outside the course of their tasks’.
The FCDO says that waiver of immunity just applied to personnel at RAF Croughton at the time of Mr Dunn’s death and not their relative – suggesting Sacoolas did have diplomatic resistance at the time of the crash.
But Mr Robertson said: ‘Since member of the family are not members of the mission and they have no tasks, Anne Sacoolas was never entitled to any derivative or implied immunity from criminal jurisdiction.’
He added that it would be ‘ridiculous’ for family members to have ‘greater opportunities and immunities’ than the personnel at RAF Croughton ‘from whom their resistance flows’.
In composed submissions, the FCDO’s barrister Sir James Eadie QC stated: ‘As a matter of worldwide and domestic law, Mrs Sacoolas immediately had diplomatic immunity as the spouse of a member of the administrative and technical staff of the US objective.’
He argued the FCDO ‘clearly did not obstruct the authorities investigation’, adding: ‘On the contrary, the Secretary of State sought to help the authorities examination, including by asking for a waiver of Mrs Sacoolas’s resistance.’
Sir James told the court the US ‘specifically waived the immunity from the UK’s criminal jurisdiction of ’em ployees’ or ‘staff members”, however that ‘at no point exists a waiver of the immunity delighted in by the households of such individuals’.
He also stated the FCDO officials had ‘objected in strong terms’ to Sacoolas leaving the UK, and ‘consistently emphasised’ that the department ‘wanted the Sacoolas household to co-operate with the UK authorities’.
Sir James included that the person who sent out the text to an US embassy authorities last September ‘had the previous day notified the recipient face to face of the UK’s strong objections to the United States’s designated strategy, however it was clear that there was no practical possibility of persuading the US to alter its approach’.
The hearing before Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini is anticipated to conclude on Thursday.