A few months ago, I wrote about the unsatisfactory and arbitrary ways in which justice is served – or not served – in particular, in cases where the seriousness of the outcome is more to do with chance than motivation.
Those thoughts were prompted by the case of Anne Sacoolas, the wife of an American diplomat who killed a young man called Harry Dunn with her car in Northamptonshire, then left for the US, and refuses to return to face trial. The fact that she isn’t facing a court made it impossible to judge that issue, so instead I asked why the same offence – in this case, allegedly careless or reckless driving – should receive minor penalties when no harm ensues, and potentially a very serious one (14 years in jail), when the worst happens.
The conclusion must be that the law is pragmatic and worldly, rather than dealing with abstract ethical questions. The moral issue raised by careless driving is the same whether or not there’s an accident, but real-world effects are hugely different. But if we accept this compromise – and the very existence of diplomatic immunity is an example of putting practical interests above pure justice – we’re at least entitled to an explanation of why the normal rule of law is being set aside.
The allegation that Mrs Sacoolas is not only the wife of an American diplomat, but herself a CIA agent, doesn’t change this basic dilemma but, if true, goes some way to explaining why this should have been a thorny case in terms of Realpolitik and international relations. The case of Mike Lynch, a British businessman who is to be extradited to America on fraud charges, is a further example of what looks like political expediency winning out over justice.
In 2015, the Crown Prosecution Service found no grounds for prosecuting Dr Lynch, who was running a UK company listed on the London Stock Exchange, governed by English law and UK accounting practices. A subsequent civil case has finished hearing evidence but not yet produced a ruling.
Yet under the US/UK extradition arrangements introduced by Tony Blair’s government in 2003, the Home Secretary “must” process the request, and no appeal is possible. Americans, by contrast, get to challenge such requests from the UK in their own courts, or, in the case of Mrs Sacoolas, ignore them altogether.
This not only seems obviously unjust, it isn’t even very pragmatic in political terms. Even if the UK (like every other country) is less powerful than the US, it cannot be remotely in our interests to allow such one-sided agreements. There may be an argument, even if it’s not very moral one, for compromises for the sake of some supposed greater good. There isn’t for just being kicked around. It may be worth bearing this in mind as we attempt to negotiate a trade deal.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here