The Foreign Office failed to treat the Harry Dunn case as a crisis and lost “opportunities to influence” the US after diplomatic immunity was asserted on behalf of the suspect, an independent review has concluded.
Former foreign secretary David Lammy officially launched the review into the case in July, with the report’s author Dame Anne Owers highlighting “failings and omissions” in the department when dealing with Harry’s death in August 2019.
It is understood Dame Anne told the Dunn family it was her “strong view” the then foreign secretary Dominic Raab should have been involved “far earlier in the process”, with his private office being copied into a note three days after the crash expressing concern over potentially “unpalatable headlines”.
Harry’s mother Charlotte Charles and father Tim Dunn were heavily critical of the Foreign Office in 2019 after senior officials told the US government they should “feel able” to put US suspect Anne Sacoolas on the next flight home following the fatal road crash.
The US state department asserted diplomatic immunity on behalf of Sacoolas – who left the UK 19 days after the incident outside RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire in August 2019.
The Dunn family spent three years campaigning for justice, which saw them meet US President Donald Trump in the White House.
Sacoolas eventually pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving via video link at the Old Bailey in December 2022 and she later received an eight-month prison sentence, suspended for 12 months.
Reacting to the review, Mrs Charles told the Press Association: “Reading her report has been a hugely emotional experience and has triggered a lot of anger, taking it back as it does to those early days after we lost Harry.
“Having turned to the authorities for help, we got nothing from them.
“The report confirms what we have lived with every day for more than six years, that mistakes were made, that opportunities were missed and that our family was not treated with the honesty or urgency that any grieving parent deserves.”
Dame Anne said the decision by officials to tell the US government they should “feel able” to put state department employee Sacoolas on the next flight home “reflected a reluctant recognition of the US’s decision, rather than agreement with it”.
Her report continued: “From the documentation I have seen, there is no doubt that those who were directly involved hoped and expected that the US would, as one put it, ‘do the right thing’, irrespective of any other considerations.
“But there was a significant delay in recognising that this should be a priority across the department as a whole, and in escalating it to a sufficiently senior level.”
Mrs Charles said the family “knew things weren’t right, which is why we campaigned with such force”.
She said: “For years we have carried the fear that Harry’s case was not taken seriously enough at the highest levels when it mattered most.
“Dame Anne’s findings show that those fears were justified. That is incredibly painful to hear, even now.
“Nothing will bring our beautiful Harry back, but today we feel seen, heard and believed.
“We knew things weren’t right, which is why we campaigned with such force.
“All we wanted when we asked for the inquiry was to ensure that no other family ever has to endure what we did.”
In her recommendations, Dame Anne said deaths involving exceptional circumstances, such as diplomatic immunity, should now be given an “immediate surge of resources”, with a mandatory early escalation to ministers and senior officials.
The US government at the time of the incident were considered to have been “exploiting a loophole” in the immunity agreement at US air base RAF Croughton, which granted dependants of administrative and technical staff immunity but not the staff themselves.
Dame Anne said the now revised terms of the Croughton immunity agreement should be put before Parliament.
Her report continued: “There is no doubt that officials, and then ministers, were shocked by the US’s initial response, and made those views clear at increasingly high levels.
“However, as the review points out, there were failings and omissions in the department at this time.
“The issue was not recognised as a crisis and escalated to a sufficiently high level at an early stage, losing opportunities to influence, rather than respond to, events.
“Direct communication with the family was late, sporadic and often overtaken by events, and the FCO was slow to recognise that the family were allies in achieving justice and securing other necessary changes.
“Within the FCO, there was an over-rigid demarcation of roles, both in internal and external relationships, that did not make best use of the knowledge and skills available.”
