The High Court has refused an application by Harry Dunn’s parents for the Foreign Office to reveal proof associating with a “secret agreement” between the UK and US federal governments, which is stated to have actually provided diplomatic immunity to their boy’s supposed killer.
Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn claim Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab and Northamptonshire Authorities acted unlawfully over the departure of Anne Sacoolas from the UK.
Harry Dunn, 19, was eliminated in August when his motorcycle crashed into a Volvo driving on the incorrect side of the roadway outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire.
Mrs Sacoolas, whose hubby Jonathan Sacoolas worked as a technical assistant at the base, declared diplomatic immunity following the crash and had the ability to go back to the US.
The 42- year-old was later on charged with triggering death by harmful driving in December, nevertheless an extradition demand was refused by the US the following month.
Mr Dunn’s parents argue that the Foreign Office “acted unlawfully by proceeding as if Anne Sacoolas conclusively had immunity and/or advising other state bodies that she did”, which they state avoided Northamptonshire Authorities “from reaching an informed view as to the immunity issue”.
In a so-called “Exchange of Notes” between the UK and US in 1994-95, an arrangement was made over immunity for administrative and technical personnel at RAF Croughton “on the understanding that the United States government … waives the immunity … in respect of acts performed outside the course of their duties”.
However another file divulged by the Foreign Office – a rundown note sent out to Sir Tony Baldry, then a junior minister at the department, in May 1995 – has actually revealed that issues were raised that “an accident involving the claim of immunity could make the local if not national headlines”.
After an initial hearing on Thursday, performed from another location by video call, Lord Justice Flaux and Mr Justice Saini turned down the application for the Foreign Office to reveal more proof ahead of a full hearing.
Lord Justice Flaux stated: “We do not consider that any of the documents sought is necessary for the fair and just determination of the issues in the case, so that application is refused.”
The court likewise refused an application to rely on professional proof from Sir Ivor Roberts, “one of the country’s most distinguished diplomats”.
Lord Justice Flaux added: “Whilst we, of course, acknowledge his eminence, we do not consider any of that evidence to be admissible or relevant to the issues we have to decide.”
Geoffrey Robertson QC, representing Mrs Charles and Mr Dunn, earlier informed the court that the Foreign Office “has through its actions obstructed a criminal investigation, under pressure from the United States”.
He argued that Mr Sacoolas had “only limited” immunity from prosecution in relation to “acts performed in the course of his duties”, and that his partner went into the UK with “none at all since she would perform no duties relating to the mission”.
The court directed that a full hearing of Mrs Charles and Mr Dunn’s case will be heard in October or November.