Harry Dunn’s alleged killer Anne Sacoolas was never entitled to diplomatic immunity while her husband was working at an RAF airbase, the High Court has heard.
Lawyers representing Mr Dunn’s family say a 1995 waiver agreed between the US and UK meant administrative and technical staff at RAF Croughton did not have diplomatic immunity beyond their duties.
Mr Dunn, 19, was killed when his motorbike crashed into a car being driven on the wrong side of the road by American Anne Sacoolas outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on August 27 last year.
Sacoolas, whose husband Jonathan Sacoolas worked as a technical assistant at the base, left the country a few weeks later after the US said she was entitled to diplomatic immunity.
But Sam Wordsworth QC, representing Mr Dunn’s family, has today declared Sacoolas ‘never had any relevant immunity’.
The 43-year-old was ultimately charged with causing death by dangerous driving last December, but an extradition request was rejected by the US State Department in January – a decision it later described as ‘final’.
Documents unearthed at today’s hearing also revealed a Foreign Office official predicted that a fatal car crash involving a diplomatic immunity claim would cause a public scandal 25 years before Mr Dunn’s death.
Harry Dunn, 19, was killed when his motorbike collided with a car outside RAF Croughton
Parents and step-parents of Harry Dunn, (left to right) Charlotte Charles (mother), Bruce Charles (stepfather), Tim Dunn (father) and Tracey Dunn (stepmother) outside court
A briefing note sent to Sir Tony Baldry, then junior FCO minister, in 1995 raised concerns that ‘an accident involving the claim of immunity could make the local if not national headlines.’
Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab’s office was warned that the case could cause some ‘very unpalatable headlines’ three days after the August 2019 crash, in a briefing note copied to his private secretary.
But the Foreign Office told Harry Dunn’s family Mr Raab was only made personally aware of the case after Sacoolas fled justice on September 15th, 19 days after the teenager died.
Northamptonshire Police were also urged by the Foreign Office to delay telling his family that detectives had been prevented from interviewing Sacoolas under caution because the US insisted she maintain diplomatic immunity.
Detective Inspector Louise Hemmingway said in her statement that the Foreign Office had requested the delay while they ‘gain agreement on next steps’ after the waiver to her diplomatic immunity was refused.
Harry Dunn’s mother Charlotte Charles watched High Court proceedings from home today, as the hearing was told Sacoolas ‘never had any relevant immunity’
The FCDO maintains that Ann Sacoolas did have diplomatic immunity as US-UK waiver only applied to staff at RAF Croughton, and not to their family members
Earlier today the Foreign Office was accused of keeping police investigating the crash that killed Harry Dunn in the dark for two weeks over whether the driver had diplomatic immunity.
Mr Dunn’s parents, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, claim the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) wrongly decided Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity and unlawfully obstructed Northamptonshire Police’s investigation into their son’s death.
Ms Charles and Mr Dunn initially also took legal action against Northamptonshire Police but that claim was dropped in July, with the family’s spokesman saying the force had been ‘absolved of any blame’.
Ms Charles listened fromhome in Oxfordshire as she heard the UK and US agreed in 1995 that administrative and technical staff at RAF Croughton would have their immunity waives in relation to ‘acts performed outside the course of their duties’
In 1995, the UK agreed to an American request to include staff at RAF Croughton on the diplomatic list, but asked the US to waive the immunity of administrative and technical staff in relation to ‘acts performed outside the course of their duties’.
The FCDO says that waiver only applied to staff at RAF Croughton and not their family members, meaning Anne Sacoolas did have immunity at the time of the crash.
But, at a remote hearing on Wednesday, Sam Wordsworth QC – representing Ms Charles and Mr Dunn – said Sacoolas had ‘no duties at all’ at the base and therefore ‘never had any relevant immunity for the US to waive’.
At a remote hearing on Wednesday, Geoffrey Robertson QC said the FCDO ‘took upon itself the authority to resolve the question of immunity and ultimately and unlawfully decided to accept the US embassy’s decision that Anne Sacoolas had immunity’.
He said in written submissions that decision ‘obstructed the police by preventing any effective further progress 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’, referring to a text message sent to a US embassy official 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 been rejected
The message read: ‘I think that now the decision has been taken not to waive (immunity), there’s not much mileage in us asking you to keep the family here.
‘It’s obviously not us approving of their departure but I think you should be able to put them on the next flight out.’
The FCDO argues Sacoolas had diplomatic immunity on the basis of an agreement reached with the US embassy more than two decades ago.
In 1995, the UK agreed to an American request to include staff at RAF Croughton on the diplomatic list, but asked the US to waive the immunity of administrative and technical staff in relation to ‘acts performed outside the course of their duties’.
The FCDO says that waiver of immunity only applied to staff at RAF Croughton at the time of Mr Dunn’s death and not their family members – meaning Sacoolas did have diplomatic immunity at the time of the crash.
But Mr Robertson said: ‘Since family members are not members of the mission and they have no duties, Anne Sacoolas was never entitled to any derivative or implied immunity from criminal jurisdiction.’
He added that it would be ‘absurd’ for family members to have ‘greater privileges and immunities’ than the staff at RAF Croughton ‘from whom their immunity flows’.
In written submissions, the FCDO’s barrister Sir James Eadie QC said: ‘As a matter of international and domestic law, Mrs Sacoolas automatically had diplomatic immunity as the spouse of a member of the administrative and technical staff of the US mission.’
He argued the FCDO ‘plainly did not obstruct the police investigation’, adding: ‘On the contrary, the Secretary of State sought to assist the police investigation, including by requesting a waiver of Mrs Sacoolas’s immunity.’
Sir James told the court the US ‘expressly waived the immunity from the UK’s criminal jurisdiction of ’employees’ or ‘staff members”, but that ‘at no point is there a waiver of the immunity enjoyed by the families of such individuals’.
He also said the FCDO officials had ‘objected in strong terms’ to Sacoolas leaving the UK, and ‘repeatedly emphasised’ that the department ‘wanted the Sacoolas family to co-operate with the UK authorities’.
Sir James added that the person who sent the text message to a US embassy official last September ‘had the previous day informed the recipient in person of the UK’s strong objections to the US’s intended course of action, but it was clear that there was no realistic prospect of convincing the US to change its approach’.
The hearing before Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini is expected to conclude on Thursday.