24/01/2020
Trump's America continues to act with a complete lack of integrity.
America have, previously, complied with extradition requests from the UK. It seems, from what I have fund, it is the UK who have rejected calls to extradite people to the UK more often than the other way round. An example of this was the case of Gary McKinnon.
McKinnon was accused of hacking into ninety-seven United States military and NASA computers over a thirteen-month period; between February 2001 and March 2002. He was first arrested and interviewed in 2002, but remained free for several years. Once the 2003 extradition treaty was implemented into law, America sought McKinnnon's extradition for seven counts of unauthorised access to computer systems; each of which were likely to lead to a sentence 8 to 10 years in jail; a possible sentence of 70 years.
McKinnon appealed to the House of Lords, the European Court of Human Rights and the High Court (for a judicial review); but lost at every attempt. However, in October 2012 the then-Home Secretary Theresa May announced that the extradition had been blocked, saying, "Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But, there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill." She continued to say, "He has Asperger's syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights."
The suggestion that America doesn't comply with extradition requests, made by our bumbling Prime Minister Boris Johnson, is unreasonable. Johnson had said, "I think the chances of America actually responding by sending Anne Sacoolas to this country are very low. That's not what they do. But we will continue to make every effort that we can."
And yet, in spite of America's historic cooperation with extradition requests, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did indeed turn down the extradition request in an email to the UK Government on Thursday evening.
Mrs Sacoolas (42), the wife of a US intelligence officer who worked at RAF Croughton, left the country under diplomatic immunity following a crash on 27th August 2019 in which Harry Dunn (19) was killed. Â Sacoolas was driving a Volvo XC90 on the wrong side of the road, when she had a head on collision with Harry on his motorcycle.
Sacoolas had cooperated with police at the scene of the crash and was interviewed the next day at her home, still cooperating. Â However, diplomatic immunity was brought up during the interview and Northamptonshire Police applied for an immunity waiver. Â The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) informed the police on 16 September 2019 that the waiver had been declined and that Sacoolas had left the UK on a US Air Force aircraft.
The crimes of 'driving without due care and attention' and 'reckless or dangerous driving' exist, in some form, both in the UK and America.  Therefore, the measure required for extradition was undoubtably met.  So, did Sacoolas deserve to benefit from diplomatic immunity and evade prosecution?
As a means of comparison, Gueorgui Makharadze was a high-ranking Georgian diplomat who caused a five-car pileup in Washington, D.C., which killed a 16-year-old girl. Makharadze claimed diplomatic immunity, which created a national outrage in the United States, especially as Makharadze had a record of committing driving offences. He had been charged with speeding in Virginia in April 1996 and arrested by District of Columbia police on suspicion of drunk driving four months later. Charges were dismissed in both cases, due to his diplomatic immunity. Georgia revoked Makharadze's immunity as a result of the media coverage, leading to him eventually pleading guilty to one count of involuntary manslaughter and four counts of aggravated assault and being sentenced to seven years in prison.
When considering this, it is worth noting that Sacoolas was apparently previously fined in Virginia, US for 'failure to pay full time and attention'.  I believe this is almost akin to a local bylaw in the UK.  The wording is apparently: "No person shall operate a motor vehicle upon the highways of this County without giving his full time and attention to the operation of the vehicle." A key point to note is that this 'lesser' charge (for that is what it is in essence) is a way for the local prosecutor to gain a conviction, whilst the defendant avoids a record against their driving licence.
At the moment, there appears to be no appetite in America for Sacoolas to be charged for causing a death through reckless driving, dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention. As a result, I believe our government should be applying pressure to the US State Department and Trump himself for the extradition request to be granted.
There should be no doubt that Sacoolas would face a fair trial.
The fact that this was not a 'hit and run' incident and that she has, for the most part, cooperated with the police, would suggest that she may be treated leniently. Indeed, if she were prosecuted for 'Causing death by careless, or inconsiderate, driving' (and found guilty), she may not face a custodial sentence.
She might instead face a community order and a fine.
Even if she were to face a charge of 'Causing death by dangerous driving' (and be found guilty), it is likely that the factors leading to the incident would mean it were not considered an aggravated case and any sentence would be levied at the lower end of the scale. This might mean a sentence would be 1-2 years and not the 14 year maximum permissible.
There should be no doubt that Mrs Sacoolas should be extradited to the UK to face prosecution. Â The UK's justice system is fair and reasonable and she would not face a disproportionate penalty.
Comments