3 ms·
You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are
by matthewheath 7y ago
You don't need to be on the official list to acquire diplomatic immunity (that would be an easy way for foreign regimes to deny diplomatic immunity). There are chefs, drivers, etc. who have diplomatic immunity but are not on the official list (because that would unreasonably lengthen it).
Additionally, the RAF base her husband was stationed at is legally considered an annex of the US Embassy in London, so arguably she did have diplomatic immunity at that point in time.
She has since returned to the US which means diplomatic immunity no longer applies to her, but as far as I can see, she was covered by immunity at the time of the incident.
- UncleSlacky 7y agoThere's an interesting analysis here which (mostly) agrees with you, with the proviso that we only have Boris Johnson's government's word (for all that's worth!) that she was covered by a form of immunity: https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-immunity-or-special-immunity/ https://grberridge.diplomacy.edu/the-sacoolas-affair-diploma...
- nkurz 7y agoSince we are discussing this in the context of a Craig Murray article, here's Craig arguing that Sacoolas clearly lacks diplomatic immunity, and that an RAF Base in no way can be considered an annex of the US Embassy: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-office-must-be-challenged-over-sacoolas-immunity/ https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/10/the-foreign-....
- matthewheath 7y agoHaving read Craig Murray's post mentioned in an adjoining comment — and taken the time to read the relevant legislation, I concede that she's not covered by diplomatic immunity and neither is her husband. I also retract my assertion regarding the annexation of the base — I can't see that it has any legal basis to it other than a political exercise by the Government.