FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Getting away with it
Getting away with it
Jump to: Newest in thread
8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Summary from the BBC news site:
US citizen Anne Sacoolas is given an eight month prison sentence suspended for 12 months for causing the death of teenage motorcyclist Harry Dunn in 2019
Sacoolas was driving on the wrong side of the road when she killed Dunn, 19, in a crash outside a US military base in Northamptonshire, UK
Speaking outside court, Dunn's mother Charlotte Charles said, "job done, promise complete", adding "Harry, we've done it"
She also described Sacoolas's failure to attend the sentencing in person as "despicable"
Sacoolas, who was also banned from driving in the UK, was sentenced via video link from the US in a televised hearing at the Old Bailey
The 45-year-old - who had pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving - said she was "deeply sorry" for the pain caused by her "tragic mistake", in a statement read to court
The case caused a diplomatic row between the US and British governments - Sacoolas left the UK claiming diplomatic immunity and the US refused to extradite her
Death by careless driving carries a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment but a community punishment or suspended jail sentence is often given. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down. "
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The family blame the American government.
Ironic on the same day as a prisoner swap with an innocent American athlete and a Russian warlord.
I feel so sorry for the family,all they can have is justice and they can't even have that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…"
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence? "
Because her husband is a diplomat so she claimed diplomatic immunity and wouldn’t have to return to the UK to serve her sentence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence?
Because her husband is a diplomat so she claimed diplomatic immunity and wouldn’t have to return to the UK to serve her sentence "
So could she not have been made to serve the sentence in the US instead? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence?
Because her husband is a diplomat so she claimed diplomatic immunity and wouldn’t have to return to the UK to serve her sentence
So could she not have been made to serve the sentence in the US instead? "
They looked into it and because of the diplomatic immunity nature of the case there is no guarantee the U.S. government would have carried out the punishment… also ironically sacoolas did offer to do some type of community service as punishment, but because uk law says for this type of crime it must be some kind of prison sentence, it could not be accepted |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence?
Because her husband is a diplomat so she claimed diplomatic immunity and wouldn’t have to return to the UK to serve her sentence
So could she not have been made to serve the sentence in the US instead? "
She still has diplomatic status in the U.S. that aside I’m honestly not sure about the rules of serving sentences outside of the country where the sentence was given |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down.
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!!"
A mitigating circumstance is only being in the country a couple of weeks?!
The mind boggles.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down.
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!!
A mitigating circumstance is only being in the country a couple of weeks?!
The mind boggles. "
That was one of the mitigating circumstances. She stayed with him after the accident, and admitted what had happened at the roadside to the police showing remorse, she was also going to come back to the uk for the sentencing until advised at the last moment by the us government not to do so…
It’s those things that were taken in mitigation |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A total waste of time and money
Going through the court. The sentence means nothing to the us .their government never take respciblity for actions of USA citizens abroad .
But fair dos to the family highlight the issues .but one rule for them one rule for us . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down.
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!!
A mitigating circumstance is only being in the country a couple of weeks?!
The mind boggles.
That was one of the mitigating circumstances. She stayed with him after the accident, and admitted what had happened at the roadside to the police showing remorse, she was also going to come back to the uk for the sentencing until advised at the last moment by the us government not to do so…
It’s those things that were taken in mitigation "
Ahhhh fuck!! Why didn't they report this better? X |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"… So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!…
Thanks for explaining. Why would she never have had to serve the 8 month sentence?
Because her husband is a diplomat so she claimed diplomatic immunity and wouldn’t have to return to the UK to serve her sentence
So could she not have been made to serve the sentence in the US instead?
They looked into it and because of the diplomatic immunity nature of the case there is no guarantee the U.S. government would have carried out the punishment… also ironically sacoolas did offer to do some type of community service as punishment, but because uk law says for this type of crime it must be some kind of prison sentence, it could not be accepted "
It’s baffling. Even though it was an accident, it just seems so unjust for Harry and his family |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It’s baffling. Even though it was an accident, it just seems so unjust for Harry and his family "
Accident implies nobody is at fault, she was entirely at fault for failing to obey traffic laws and fleeing the country to escape justice |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down.
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!!
A mitigating circumstance is only being in the country a couple of weeks?!
The mind boggles.
That was one of the mitigating circumstances. She stayed with him after the accident, and admitted what had happened at the roadside to the police showing remorse, she was also going to come back to the uk for the sentencing until advised at the last moment by the us government not to do so…
It’s those things that were taken in mitigation
Ahhhh fuck!! Why didn't they report this better? X "
This judge did a brilliant job in summary and explaining in detail how they got to the sentencing under the guidelines.. it was a brilliant watch and the first time I’d seen it on tv… if you can find it, it’s about a 20 minute watch but it gives a better understanding rather than the sensational takes you will see
Absolutely point fingers at the us government and their actions…. And look at how this extradition treaty is so one sided… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
It’s baffling. Even though it was an accident, it just seems so unjust for Harry and his family
Accident implies nobody is at fault, she was entirely at fault for failing to obey traffic laws and fleeing the country to escape justice "
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I hope she is crippled with guilt for the rest of her life. It’s disgusting what she did |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"8 months suspended for killing a young lad, and then fleeing the country while under Diplomatic Immunity.
The Judge should be ashamed of herself. I bet that lads parents are absolutely furious.
Such a let down.
There is not a lot the judge could do… and if you saw the full judgement summary you will understand why..
So here is the TLDR version…
for what she was charged with the maximum she could have gotten was 15 months (careless driving rather than reckless driving)
she is saying there were some mitigating circumstances (in that she had only been in the country a couple of weeks) so 3 months was taken off… so 12 months!
Then because she admitted the offence at the earliest opportunity, the law says 1/3 is taken off the sentence … 8 months
So the judge had 2 choices… 8 months in prison which she would never serve and because it would never be served the case would always be open!
Or 8 months suspended and give the family some closure!
You can point fingers in a lot of directions… the U.S. government, the extradition treaty and lack there of, … but you can’t blame the judge for applying the law!!!
A mitigating circumstance is only being in the country a couple of weeks?!
The mind boggles.
That was one of the mitigating circumstances. She stayed with him after the accident, and admitted what had happened at the roadside to the police showing remorse, she was also going to come back to the uk for the sentencing until advised at the last moment by the us government not to do so…
It’s those things that were taken in mitigation
Ahhhh fuck!! Why didn't they report this better? X
This judge did a brilliant job in summary and explaining in detail how they got to the sentencing under the guidelines.. it was a brilliant watch and the first time I’d seen it on tv… if you can find it, it’s about a 20 minute watch but it gives a better understanding rather than the sensational takes you will see
Absolutely point fingers at the us government and their actions…. And look at how this extradition treaty is so one sided… "
Thank you, I'll have a look. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ohn KanakaMan
over a year ago
Not all that North of North London |
Driving on the wrong side of the road definitely meets the level required for death by dangerous which if convicted is a custodial minimum tarriff.
Many people convicted of death by careless don't even get a suspended sentence. I'm some cases they dint even get a ban. Its almost always a slap on the wrist.
Accepting a guilty plea for the lesser charge was always going to avoid a custodial and the political drama that would have caused.
It's farcical. But anyone getting angry about this case needs to recognise we have a judicial system that frequently treats road deaths as inconsequential |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
