Government admits it had no idea Harry Dunn’s alleged killer was a US spy
The Government has admitted for the first time that it had no idea that Harry Dunn’s alleged killer was allegedly a US spy prompting claims that he therefore did not have diplomatic immunity from prosecution.
The disclosure came after it was suggested in a US court that Anne Sacoolas, 43, worked for a US intelligence agency at the time of the fatal road crash when her car hit the teenager outside the US military base RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire.
It meant she should not have been able to claim diplomatic immunity and instead should have been prosecuted in the UK after being charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
Under a UK-US agreement that dates back to the 1990s, any official working for US state agencies should have their diplomatic immunity pre-waived so that they could be prosecuted for any criminal behaviour in the UK.
However, because she was not classed as a state employee but declared to the UK Government as only the wife of Jonathan, also an alleged spy working at RAF Croughton, she had diplomatic immunity before fleeing the UK with her husband.
Asked about the new evidence, the Prime Minister's official spokesperson said "we don't comment on intelligence matters" but added: "She was notified to the UK Government by the US as a spouse with no official role."
He said: "I would emphasise that our position on this case remains unchanged, we have consistently called for her diplomatic immunity to be waived and believe that the US refusal to extradite her amounts to a denial of justice."
The disclosure led to demands that the Government reinvestigate her claim of diplomatic immunity and take action to ensure she is brought to trial.
Harry Dunn was 19 when he was killed in the crash in August 2019. Mrs Sacoolas was able to return to her home country after the US government asserted diplomatic immunity on her behalf. The US rejected a UK extradition request after she was charged with causing death by dangerous driving.
Harry’s family and their lawyers have been campaigning for Ms Sacoolas to return to the UK to stand trial and have lodged a civil claim for damages in the US.
In a hearing of the civil claim on Wednesday, the Alexandria district court in Virginia was told Mrs Sacoolas and her husband worked for the US State Department. The court was told they "fled" the UK due to "issues of security".
Lisa Nandy, shadow foreign secretary, said: "As an employee at RAF Croughton, Anne Sacoolas would not have been entitled to immunity from prosecution.
"Dominic Raab [the Foreign Secretary] told MPs that she was entitled to protection as the spouse of an employee, but new information provided by her lawyer clearly indicates that she wasn't.
"Did the Foreign Secretary simply accept the US Embassy's account without asking any of the right questions on behalf of a UK citizen, or has he misled the House?
"After almost 18 months of fighting for justice for their son, Harry's family deserve the truth. Dominic Raab must come before MPs tomorrow and explain himself."
Mr Dunn's mother, Charlotte Charles, said "there is still time" for both Governments to find a resolution to the case despite the latest developments.
"We've been put through hell over the last 18 months, totally needlessly,” she said. "That said, there is still time for both governments to come forward and to work with us to ensure that there is justice for my son.
"We remain absolutely open to holding talks with officials in London and Washington to find a path forward."
Radd Steiger, the family spokesperson and lawyer, said: “It’s deeply concerning that we have a US CIA officer spying here without the Government’s knowledge. That opens a whole series of questions about the relationship between the US and UK. Why didn’t the Government know?
“Both Governments must step forward and ensure this family get justice and closure.”
The High Court has previously upheld Mrs Sacoolas’s claim that she had diplomatic immunity. The Crown Prosecution Service has, however, said it believes there is a realistic prospect of conviction despite that finding.
