Foreign Office deny Harry Dunn’s family’s claims that Dominic Raab abused his power by letting ‘killer’ spy’s wife return to the US
- Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn are seeking judicial review into FCO actions
- Anne Sacoolas, involved in the crash that killed their son Harry, 19, left UK after
- Their appeal against FCO and Mr Raab has been met with strong resistance
The Foreign Office has told Harry Dunn’s family their claims Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab ‘misused’ or ‘abused’ his power are ‘entirely without foundation’.
Harry’s parents, Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn, are seeking a judicial review against the FCO after Anne Sacoolas was granted diplomatic immunity and allowed to leave the UK for her home in the US.
Mrs Sacoolas, wife of US diplomat Jonathan Sacoolas, was granted diplomatic immunity through her husband’s status after she was involved in the crash that killed the 19-year-old on August 27.
She left the country, leaving Harry’s family, who live near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire where the crash happened, devastated.
But now it is understood the FCO plans to fight any judicial review brought against it.
Harry’s parents, Charlotte Charles (left) and Tim Dunn (right with family spokesman Radd Seiger), are seeking a judicial review against the FCO after Anne Sacoolas was granted diplomatic immunity and allowed to leave the UK for her home in the US
The Foreign Office has told Harry Dunn’s family (19-year-old pictured left) their claims Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab (pictured today right) ‘misused’ or ‘abused’ his power are ‘entirely without foundation’
It is understood the Government department will ‘oppose and seek costs’ for any appeal brought because the family have ‘not identified any reasonably arguable ground of legal challenge’.
The legal claim issued by Harry’s family on October 25 was met with strong resistance from the FCO – who said any judicial review would be ‘opposed’ and ‘defended’.
Pictured: Anne Sacoolas
The 19-year-old’s parents had requested the FCO ‘withdraw the advice’ provided to Northamptonshire Police surrounding the granting of diplomatic immunity Mrs Sacoolas.
The family’s lawyers also offered an alternative request of ‘paying substantive damages’ for breaching the European Convention of Human Rights.
The teenager was killed when his motorbike was involved in a head-on crash with a car outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire on August 27.
The claim against the FCO issued on behalf of Harry’s parents – alleged the granting of diplomatic immunity to Mrs Sacoolas was ‘wrong in law’.
In the FCO’s response, the family were told the allegation was not accepted, and that accusations that Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab had ‘committed misfeasance’ were also entirely without foundation.
Family spokesman, Radd Seiger, said the response from the FCO had been received and they were in the process of digesting it with lawyers.
In the letter, the FCO wrote: ‘It is not accepted that the proposed claim for judicial review articulated on your clients’ behalf in your letter, dated October 25, identifies any reasonably arguable ground of legal challenge.
‘It is not therefore accepted that you have identified any arguable basis on which to suggest that the FCO ought now either ‘to withdraw the advice provided to the police’, or to pay ‘substantive damages for the breach of Articles 2 and 6, ECHR’.
Mrs Sacoolas left the country, leaving Harry’s family, who live near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire (pictured) where the crash happened, devastated
‘The unparticularised allegation that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (SSFCA) has misused and/or abused his power and/or has committed misfeasance in public office is entirely without foundation.’
The response continued: ‘As to the alternative ground of challenge based on Articles 2 and 6 ECHR, it is not accepted that you have identified any basis under the ECHR to criticise the SSFCA’s actions.
‘The SSFCA therefore declines to take the action you have invited him to take on behalf of your clients, and would oppose any application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review.
‘We therefore invite you not to pursue the proposed claim. In the event that the claim is issued, it will be defended, the application for permission will be opposed, and the Secretary of State will seek his costs for doing so.’