FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Getting away with it

Jump to newest
 

By *elfordstevie OP   Man
over a year ago

Telford

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *izzy RascallMan
over a year ago

Cardiff

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amantha_JadeWoman
over a year ago

Newcastle


"… 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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amantha_JadeWoman
over a year ago

Newcastle


"… 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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackbydemandMan
over a year ago

Leicester

The Americans couldn't give a flying fuck if they killed a thousand English kids with napalm, they think they are above all laws

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *asterR and slut mayaMan
over a year ago

Bradford

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amantha_JadeWoman
over a year ago

Newcastle


"… 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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackbydemandMan
over a year ago

Leicester


"

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *amantha_JadeWoman
over a year ago

Newcastle


"

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *den-Valley-coupleCouple
over a year ago

Cumbria

Standard UK law terrible and a motive crime but I don't feel she should be treated worse or differently because of the high media profile.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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 privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top