Harry Dunn review ‘will not scrutinise actions of US government'
The 19-year-old's family met with senior officials at the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) on Wednesday where they were told the probe will be led by former chief inspector of prisons Dame Anne Owers.
The PA news agency understands the review is set to examine the support the FCDO offered the Dunn family after Harry was killed by a former US state department employee in a road crash in 2019.
The American driver, Anne Sacoolas, had diplomatic immunity asserted on her behalf following the incident outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire before a senior Foreign Office official said they should 'feel able' to put her on the next flight home.
PA understands the probe, which is scheduled to last for three months, is also set to look at the actions taken by the Foreign Office in the months after Harry's death and the nature of internal decision-making.
The review will also look to identify lessons to be learned for the FCDO for comparable future situations.
The involvement of the US government, which asserted the diplomatic immunity on behalf of Ms Sacoolas, will not be examined – alongside any issues covered in previous court hearings.
Dame Anne could look to request interviews with relevant staff within the Foreign Office at the time of Harry's death, as well as documents from within the FCDO.
Following the meeting, family spokesman Radd Seiger told PA: 'I think overall the family are feeling that we are going to leave a legacy for Harry, which is that no family should ever be treated the way this family were by their own government.
'The American government really were stepping on their rights; nobody really from the government stepped forward to help them.
'Dame Anne is going to look into all of this and make a series of recommendations to David Lammy that should this ever happen again, whether here or abroad, that they will get the support and representation of the Government that they need. So we are very, very pleased.
'The reason we got justice for Harry in the end was no thanks to the United Kingdom government; it was thanks to the British public and the media on both sides of the Atlantic, who spoke truth to power and made sure that we held them to account.'
Harry's mother Charlotte Charles said the current Government was more 'welcoming' than the previous Conservative one.
She said: 'I think this Government is totally different to what we were dealing with before: they were calmer, they seemed to want to engage with us, they are welcoming us to the Foreign Office.
'We aren't being shoved down the road and they seem to have a lot of patience and time for us to get the answers that we need.
'The previous government's meetings were very fraught. I think they had us in their offices under duress almost.
'I think they almost felt like they had to do it and we could feel that in the room. But since the Labour Government got in, they've been more open with us and more welcoming.'
She said she hoped the inquiry would 'get to the reason as to why we were treated so poorly'.
Ms Charles added: 'Why did they kick us down the road, why did they try to shove Harry's life under the carpet?
'What was more important than our son's life? They were rude, they were brutal with us. They were not engaging with us at all.
'They did everything they possibly could to try to make us go away and give up. The answers we need now are why. What were they so scared of?'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Letters: Israel's attack on Iran was no surprise
Moral support Sir: All of Tim Shipman's reasons for the PM's reluctance to support Israel sound outwardly plausible, though, from my experience, the spook excuse, 'The CIA wants us to keep the embassy open', is plainly specious. Mossad is clearly all over Iran and they're not relying on an embassy ('Starmer's war zone', 21 June). There is concern over what might follow a regime change, but no one is asking what happens if we don't support Israel and the US. Instead there is some cobbled-together 'de-escalation' which leaves a diminished but still viable theocratic terror regime in place, but one now consumed by a desire for existential revenge. Add to this the allies in the CRINK+ bloc, especially North Korea and Pakistan, who may be willing to sell them the missing bits of Iran's 'weapons of mass destruction' technology. We may not have chosen the timing of Israel's attack, but it is surely no surprise. As the US clearly had some 'plays' worked-out, so should we. What should be even easier is knowing which way to jump. Iran's regime killed 136 British soldiers in Iraq, sponsored terror groups all over the Middle East and violently represses its own people. We should support, whole-heartedly, Israel and the US. This should be a no-brainer. That it is not reflects poorly on a government without any kind of moral compass and worse (because moral rectitude is not the only driver of international relations), any sense of Britain's best interests. Simon Diggins OBE Colonel (Ret'd) DA Kabul (2008-10), MA to UN SRSG, Iraq (2004-05), Rickmansworth, Herts Childish views Sir: Matthew Parris's suggestion that the emancipation of women has contributed to lowering birth rates is accurate. However, to suggest that 'Falling birth rates are not a crisis' (21 June) misses the point. China would wish that were the case. Due to its myopic one-child policy between 1980 and 2016, there are fewer children around to care for their ageing parents and grandparents. The children may well be richer, as Parris suggested, but that means China will suffer as its labour force shrinks. Optimism about China's inexorable rise to become the leading superpower this century is misplaced: its population is set to halve by 2100. If that were to happen, its whole economy would tank, leaving other countries to gain more leverage on the global stage. It appears not only anti-humanist, but a form of self-harm to one's country. I hope Parris doesn't advocate a one- or two-child policy. It would be a logical extension of the argument that he is making. Henry Bateson Whittingham, Northumberland Fit to be tied Sir: Well done to Bijan Omrani for highlighting the decline in sartorial standards, in particular the casting aside of ties (Historian's notebook, 21 June). The trend became noticeable to me some years ago when politicians started appearing on television wearing jackets without ties; a rather sad attempt to appear more appealing to the rest of us. I wore a tie every weekday for 35 years while working in the civil service. However, at weekends and now just about every time I am out, I wear a cravat, which blends in with the colour of the shirt I am wearing. Cravats are comfortable, stylish and smart. I even wear one on the golf course. It does nothing to improve my swing, but I feel great. I commend them to your readers in particular and to politicians in general. Brian Donaldson Twickenham, Middlesex Mass appeal Sir: Why did Joseph Bevan declare that there is a war between traditional and post-Vatican II Catholics? (Letters, 21 June). Using words like 'no tolerance' is just inflammatory, as is being romantic about the Tridentine Mass, which he states will be swept aside. The new theology has its place, but it does not run in direct opposition to the Mass used from the death of Christ. We might recollect that Latin chant is the official music of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIV has a great opportunity to reach out and proclaim inclusivity in our beloved Church, and I believe that he will. You are so wrong in your argument, Mr Bevan: we can live together. Francis Osborn Dorchester, Dorset Opposites attract Sir: I read with interest Dot Wordsworth's item about the opposite meanings of the word 'sanction' (Mind your language, 14 June). In a similar vein, 'to dust' means both to remove the fine dry particles from a surface and 'to dust off your skill set'. But then to 'dust with icing sugar' means to deliberately cover with a light coating of powder (which is what happens when you dust furniture and the airborne particles simply settle back down again). Kay Bagon Radlett, Herts Pale ale Sir: Flora Watkins in her article 'Farewell to the old country' (21 June) encapsulates why Melissa Kite of this parish moved to Ireland. Flora states that friends can provide a multitude of examples of suburban attitudes in the Cotswolds. Could I provide a key one? The country pub has been destroyed by the stripping out of anything old or traditional, so the pubs are a Notting Hill minimalist Farrow and Ball dream bereft of character and country charm, with modern European menus and prices to go with them. Dinah Glover Bethnal Green, London Write to us: letters@
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
In defence of exorcism
British politics and ghosts are subjects that rarely meet. Sometimes an MP or parliamentary aide might report a sighting of one of various spirits that inhabit the Palace of Westminster. It is said, for instance, that the ghost of the assassin John Bellingham haunts the Commons lobby at the spot where he gunned down Spencer Perceval. And last year the diary secretary to speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle excited the tabloids with her claim that once, in one of parliament's side rooms, she felt a phantom dog nuzzling against her leg. In general, though, politicians aren't preoccupied with the paranormal. One exception is David Bull, the former TV presenter of Most Haunted Live! and the new chairman of Reform UK. On Good Morning Britain earlier this month, he was asked by Richard Madeley whether he had ever seen a ghost. Not only did Bull admit to having driven with a ghost in the boot of his car, he also told how a poltergeist had taken hold of the celebrity medium, Derek Acorah, and tried to strangle him. This story was retold the other week with sceptical merriment at The Spectator's weekly editorial meeting. Feeling that I should intervene in support of the supernatural, I confessed to the editor and his crew that I once hired someone to perform an exorcism at my house in Maida Vale. Merriment turned to suspiciously demonic laughter. What were the supernatural events that led to my experience with exorcism? I am a heavy sleeper, but even I was occasionally woken by the banging of doors on the second floor. But not as much as friends who had to sleep in the guest room. They also reported sudden chills and apparitions. The man I turned to for help was not a priest but a dowser. He was a big cheese in the British Society of Dowsers. He was not at all 'new age'; he looked and spoke like an accountant. He identified the spirit of a young girl crouching in the corner of the room and thought that she had probably been a prostitute. Villas built in Little Venice in the 19th century, often for mistresses, became brothels in the 1920s. The Warrington public house on Randolph Avenue, close by my home, was a famous house of ill repute. Some have suggested that the word 'randy' (lustful) derives from the location. To release the ghost from her physic imprisonment, I was encouraged to knock a double door between two guest rooms at great expense. It worked. No more banging doors. I was so convinced by my dowser that when I later bought a pied-à-terre in Kensington Gardens Square, I got him to give it a psycho-spiritual once-over. My account leaves one big unanswered question. Why did I believe so readily in the presence of a pesky ghost in my house? The answer is simple. I have previous experience of the supernatural. Some years earlier I was sitting in my apartment in Bombay when I was called to the telephone. A woman called Rita Rogers wanted to speak to me. She told me that my father, Frank, who had died some years earlier, was sending me a message. He wanted me to have his gold Rolex watch. Not only had I never heard of Rita (who later became famous as the clairvoyant who gave advice to Princess Diana), nor she of me, but she could not have known about my father or his watch. I rang my mother, who told me that she had been meaning to give it to me. It was handed over. As communication from beyond the grave goes, it did make me wonder why my father had sent me such a humdrum message. Despite my own supernatural experiences, I still find it difficult to take ghost stories seriously – even my own. As a historian and geopolitical analyst, I live in a world of facts, evidence and logic. When friends or acquaintances tell me about the time they saw a ghost, I pass it off as an amusing anecdote in which I only half-believe. By contrast, for most of history society has taken this stuff very seriously. The best-known early account of exorcism took place at Gerasene, near the Sea of Galilee. Here Jesus met a lunatic possessed by demons (literally 'unclean spirits' in Greek) and asked his name. 'My name is Legion, for we aremany.' Legion begged Jesus to 'send us among the pigs'. The demons were duly despatched into a nearby herd of pigs, which rushed into a lake and drowned. But exorcism predates Christianity. In the first millennium bc, shamans in Mesopotamia called asipu performed exorcisms. The Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus recorded how a holy man called Eleazar called on King Solomon to draw demons out ofthe noses of victims. Meanwhile, demons in the Islamic world, jinn, have always been dealt with by exorcists called raqui. In the West, the publication of De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam ('Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications') in 1614 defined the practice of exorcism until minor adjustments were made in Vatican II. These changes stressed the connection between exorcism and baptism. It's a connection heavily emphasised in the Orthodox churches, which do exorcisms all the time. 'At every baptism we spit on Satan – literally,' one accomplished icon painter told me. The practice of exorcism today is seen by some to be an archaic medieval hang-over. But Pope Francis in an interview warned against the 'spiritual lukewarmness' that left people open to 'diabolical possession'. According to Vatican News, the demand for exorcisms in Italy has tripled in recent years and annual requests exceed half a million. Some attribute this to an increased use of recreational drugs and psychiatric disorders. In Britain, exorcisms are carried out by specially trained priests – in the Church of England there are 42, one for each diocese. And although they don't like to publicise it, NHS consultant psychiatrists have been known to work with exorcists (or 'deliverance ministers', as the C of E calls them) to treat patients with mental health problems. The belief in ghosts is an important part of human history. And despite the sceptics, it still has a place in modern life. It would be a great subject for Reform's new chairman to get his teeth into.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What a carve up! The British flair for disastrous partition
We think of the Raj as controlling only India and Pakistan, and its infamous breakup happening in August 1947. It's a story told and filmed so often, and whose echoes reverberate today with such nuclear sabre-rattling that surely there is little left to add. And please nobody mention Edwina Mountbatten's possible affair with Jawaharlal Nehru ever again. But there is a wider, and fascinating, history which has itself been partitioned off and ignored. We forget that more than a quarter of the world's population was ruled by the Viceroy from New Delhi, in a zone that spread from the Red Sea to the borders of Thailand – an empire within an empire, which included Burma, parts of Yemen and Gulf states such as Dubai. The division of this single and much larger British 'Indian Empire' created almost all of the conflicts that plague Asia today. These include civil wars in Burma and Sri Lanka, the ongoing insurgencies in Baluchistan and north-east India, the Iranian revolution, the rise of the Taliban and the Rohingya genocide. It was high time that these wider divisions should have been examined in detail, and Sam Dalrymple does so in some style. Shattered Lands has a huge range, and the material is deftly handled to describe how a single, sprawling dominion, using the Indian rupee throughout, became 12 modern nations. Burma (as it then was) is particularly fascinating, as Dalrymple upends the common assumption that somehow there was a natural frontier between that country and India which was just waiting to be restored. Far from it. When the Simon Commission arrived in 1928 – with the young Clement Attlee as a junior member 20 years before he oversaw actual Indian independence – it was tasked with making proposals about the colonies' futures. It found that the idea of separating off Burma met with huge opposition – from the Burmese themselves, many of whom were concerned that without India their thriving economy would fail. The most senior politician, U Ottama, a disciple of Gandhi, argued that Burma was an integral part of the Indian nation. Gandhi himself was more equivocal – not least because he was already drawn to the idea of recreating Bharat, the Hindu Holy Land of the ancient Mahabarata epic. This was to make him a far more divisive figure in India than the West often allows; and neither Burma nor Arab states such as Dubai could be any part of that. Nor, of course, could a significant Muslim presence. Dalrymple is excellent on how Gandhi ('cosplaying as a sadhu') and his follower Nehru exploited the fact that for personal reasons the Muslim leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah took his eye off an inswinger ball at a crucial moment; and how the 'Nehru Report' could suggest dispensing with separate electorates for Muslims or reserved seats in parliament, a crucial requirement for a more unified nation. Those personal reasons are also moving. The tall, patrician figure of Jinnah, known for his reserve and serious approach as a barrister and politician, fell deeply in love in 1918, aged 42, with Ruttie Petit, the 18-year-old daughter of a Parsi baronet. Sir Dinshaw Petit was not amused and put Jinnah in the dock, alleging abduction. The case failed; but so did the marriage, and Ruttie soon became a sad, drug-dependent casualty who died, aged 29, leaving Jinnah a shadow of his former self. Jinnah, not Gandhi, comes across in this account as the politician most concerned at an early stage to have a secular India where the two majority faiths could live together; and a larger India to include Burma, so as to further leaven a multi-faith state. Dalrymple tells the subsequent story of the Japanese invasion of Burma (woefully unforeseen by the British) and the exodus by its Indian inhabitants. There is a brilliant mix of narrative history with moving personal accounts of those who took part in what was a long, gruelling march through the jungle. If there is one common theme that emerges from his description of the further partitions that followed, it is the cack-handed and casual way many British colonial officers drew border lines on the map for 'administrative convenience'. These arbitrary divisions were to cause generational conflicts – including in Afghanistan, with the division of the Pathans from Pakistan, and the current conflicts in Myanmar with the Rohingya. What is it about the British temperament that made us so capable of running an empire but so hopeless when it came to dividing it? A lack of emotional intelligence and empathy? Our habit of compromise might be admirable for day-to-day administration but is less useful for the building of new nations, when what was needed were clean lines not fudged ones. The shards left from such clumsy partitions in southern Asia are still drawing blood. This is a book full of what-ifs and how it could all have gone a different way. At one point just before 'the Great Partition', the tantalising idea of a federal India emerged, supported by Jinnah. This would have been on the model of the United Kingdom, in which Pakistan and India would have coexisted; and would have done so alongside other states, such as the Gulf ones. At the time considered deserts and of no value, these would later have wielded such oil riches as to make 'United India' a dominant economic power in the world. Instead, Mountbatten pressed the button on full partition and allowed only ten weeks to prepare for it ('Everyone will be shocked into action'), with disastrous consequences: at least a million deaths, at a conservative estimate, in the Punjab alone. Dalrymple delivers his account at pace and with a keen eye for the telling detail. The ambition for what is his first book is impressive, and there is an admirably inclusive set of maps for those who don't know their Srinagars from their Sri Lankas. It's quite something for an author to claim that he has conducted his interviews in Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Konyak, Arabic and Burmese. This is a book that combines scholarship with a flair for narrative story-telling of the highest order. And the story of India's 'other partitions' has remained untold for too long.
