3 ms·
There'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!
by UncleSlacky 7y ago
There'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.