In the former case a physical crime was committed where the suspect and criminal act were both in the geography where the crime is alleged. If not for diplomatic status there would be nothing unique about this case and criminal proceeding would move forward with the suspect in apprehension.
In the later the suspect has no relationship to the geography where the crime was committed. The suspect is not a resident or citizen and was not present or planning to visit the geography in question. Furthermore the suspect was likely acting on orders of a nation-state and so bears limited responsibility. There is no legal recourse to apprehend the suspect.
Well that's just wrong.
There's diplomatic immunity unless the visiting country explicitly waves it. It's not based on some hypothetical legal theory of whether she should have it or not. The visiting country either waves it, or doesn't.
In this case, the police requested a diplomatic waiver and were denied.
https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law/9780198703969.001.0...
Additionally, the husband was not on a diplomatic mission, was not a registered diplomat, and does not qualify for diplomatic immunity by the rules of the host country.
Neither does his wife.
The rules only matter with regard to who's allowed entry under what status. They're not subject to review after entering, except for expulsion.
I'm going to assume you're conflating the definitions of diplomat. The Vienna convention only sets a minimum standard. The things you're taking about might matter if it's the US and maybe Libya.
For friendly countries, there are agreements that extend the diplomatic privileges well beyond the core diplomatic party.
And once rules are agreed upon, they only apply to who is let into the country under what status. So entry can be denied, but once allowed in with a diplomatic or official passport, the host country can't change that status. All they can do is expel the person.
If the UK allowed entry under a diplomatic / official passport, that's all that matters.
Regardless, in a "possession is 9/10s if the law" sort of way, the only thing that matters in practice is if the visiting country waives immunity.
The victim's family recently accused the driver of working for the CIA, and if she was in fact a spy she absolutely doesn't have immunity. That's just an accusation, of course.
There's no other measure of quality that matters in a practical sense. If the host country wants to dispute that, their recourse is expulsion.
And CIA and other agencies certainly do act under the auspices of diplomatic protection. Barring any movie-like treasonous behavior, why wouldn't they? They're government officials working in an official capacity while abroad.
Besides, being ex-CIA doesn't disqualify spousal immunity. Even if the host country had a problem with that, the recourse is... expulsion.
This is such an American-centric view of the world. If you don't want to abide by the moral standards of another country, maybe... uh... don't go there?
Laws and courts are there for all. The fact that this lady killed a child, and chose to flee the country, says a lot about her character. All this would have probably been resolved with a generous compensation (by the US gov to the victim's family)(all except bringing the child back). She didn't do anything on purpose until she flipped the finger to UK justice and the victim's family and ran away like the rat she is (let's not forget that she killed a child). US gov on the other hand protects its citizens (even those who kill children and flee justice - great job USA)(she was in the UK, she would have a fair trial). It's a messed up sorry that only has pain, sorrow, and anger.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any compensation or repercussions, but the possibility of 14 years for an accident is absurd. If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story. And what precedent would the US gov be setting by turning over gov employees working abroad (or their families)?
Now that you know I basically have gone through this, maybe you should re-think your sentiment.
But isn't Anne Sacoolas walking free?
You haven't "basically gone through this", since person that killed your sister was held accountable for their actions.
Anne Sacoolas was not held accountable, that family has no closure unlike yours.
> If it wasn't an accident or if she was in fact negligent, that's another story
She is to be charged with "causing death by _dangerous_ driving", not an accident.
All that being said I'm sorry about your sister and I hope you're doing OK.