But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. A crime is still there to be investigated and prosecuted, an extradition could proceed.
Additionally US-UK extradition agreements both under Thatcher and later under Blair have been notable for their imbalance, but that seems rather academic here.
A balanced discussion of the issues underlying: https://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/sacoolas-affair-diplomatic-im...
> But having returned to the USA there is no longer any immunity. An extradition could proceed.
They are claiming that for political reasons. That way it is up to the US to refuse extradition, which they obviously and predictably have, and be the 'bad guys'.
The reality is that both governments knew full well from the start that nothing would happen to her the instant she left the UK. The reality is not popular with British public opinion so they are posturing.
There are lots of US bases outside London that conduct US intelligence gathering - e.g RAF Menwith Hill.
For a diplomatic cover, usually something for missions in unfriendly and hostile states, (shades of Cold War le Carré here) it would be for staff at the embassy -- which is in London. So the airbase would have to be considered a branch or part of the London embassy under the Vienna Convention. Yet Menwith Hill and Croughton etc are supposedly RAF bases militarily shared under NATO deals.
Hence all the controversy currently coming out of the woodwork, and numerous articles quoting QCs and ministers disputing the validity at all, or considering it abuse of Vienna, including the exploration piece I linked above. IANAL. :)
Secondly, the US have already established a precedent that seems very relevant to this where they claimed that a foreign national did not have diplomatic immunity relating to a much less serious traffic offense https://autos.yahoo.com/owner-of-beverly-hills-laferrari-doe...
Thus it is really a matter of whether her husband was legitimately working as someone with immunity.
Everyone says no. But if it's something like the CIA involved, event the UK gov't may only be going through motions of outrage for appearances and not trying to actually win an extradition.
If you do something that is a crime usually sentenced to >1 year in both countries, then diplomatic immunity does not apply. Source: BBC
Also to have diplomatic immunity you must be an accredited diplomat agreed by the host country before entering. She was not.
That's not the case. If it was then bypassing the Vienna Convention would be straightforward.
In the UK foreign diplomats commonly avoid prosecution for serious crimes because they are protected if their home country refuses to waive immunity.
> Also to have diplomatic immunity you must be an accredited diplomat agreed by the host country before entering. She was not.
It does not matter as family members are covered. What matters is whether her husband had diplomatic immunity.
In any case, diplomatic immunity is a moot point at this stage since she was quickly 'exfiltrated' and the US have made clear that they won't send her back.
The U.S. has failed to waive diplomatic immunity in a number of reckless/drunk driving cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Vehicular_...
I wish people consult at least wikipedia when making claim. In this particular area "good" US looks worse than "bad" Russia which at least criminally charged the offender once he had been sent back to Russia.
The US does stand up for its citizens which is a nice quality but on the other hand it goes overboard in many cases.
In addition, in her case I suspect they also want to avoid any disclosure of the activities of her husband.
The point actually also (or especially) applies in the UK: If she did have diplomatic immunity then what is the basis to prosecute (or even just sue) her in the UK?