The US Embassy stated Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity on account of her husband’s job. The Foreign Office agreed but requested the US waive immunity. The US declined and rejected subsequent extradition proceedings brought by the Crown Prosecution Service regarding a charge of death by dangerous driving.
Dunn’s parents claimed the foreign secretary was wrong to conclude Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity and that he unlawfully confirmed or advised that Sacoolas had immunity, obstructed a criminal investigation and breached Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Ruling in R (Charles & Dunn) v Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs [2020] EWHC 3185 (Admin), however, Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini held that Sacoolas did have immunity at the time of Dunn’s death.
Flaux LJ and Saini J said their conclusion was ‘compelled by the operation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations’ (VCDR), which ‘was the framework against which both the US and the UK were corresponding concerning the increase in staff members at RAF Croughton’.
They said: ‘We consider that in order for there to have been a waiver of Mrs Sacoolas’s immunity (an entitlement she had on arrival), the machinery of Art 32 of the VCDR had to be employed, and that required an express advance or later waiver. It is common ground that there was no such waiver.’
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
