Even though his death happened in August 2019, it's still difficult to not be upset about the circumstances under which UK motorcyclist Harry Dunn tragically lost his life. At the time, news stories said that the 19-year-old had been riding his motorcycle, as he often did, near the US base at RAF Croughton.
And that's where it all went horribly wrong, because he had the extreme bad luck to be on the road at the same time as US citizen Anne Sacoolas.
You see, she was driving on the wrong side of the road. She'd been there for three weeks, and it's unclear whether she'd been driving previously during that time; in any case, all it took was this one time of not driving on the correct side of the road for the country she was in.
These events are not in dispute; in fact, to directly quote a new independent review of the UK government's response in the months and years since Dunn's death, Sacoolas "immediately admitted to police at the scene that she was at fault."
But immediately afterward, things got incredibly murky, in ways that weren't properly made clear to anyone. In fact, that's what this report, published by former chief inspector of UK prisons Dame Anne Owers, concludes: That on multiple levels, a combination of unfortunate loopholes and poor communication exacerbated the pain and suffering experienced by Dunn's family and loved ones in the wake of the crash that took his life.
The loophole that let Sacoolas return to the US in the first place
At the time of the incident, various reports in the UK press seemed unclear about whether Sacoolas did, in fact, have diplomatic immunity. The Owers review clarifies that at the time of the incident, she was married to a US State Department official, and that he was a member of the 'administrative and technical staff' who were based at RAF Croughton. But here's where it gets complicated.
An earlier agreement between the US and UK waived immunity for administrative and technical staff stationed at RAF Croughton. However, because the language didn't explicitly extend that waiver of immunity to the dependents (including spouses) of staff, the US declared that Sacoolas did, in fact, have immunity because of this loophole.
As such, they withdrew her and her family from the UK, refused to waive her immunity, and saw that she was able to return to the US without facing prosecution in the UK.
Once she left the UK, though, this report notes that Sacoolas was no longer considered to be immune. That, combined with changes in law that went into effect during the global COVID 19 pandemic, is why Sacoolas was eventually subjected to a virtual trial, for which she did not have to leave the US.
She was found guilty of causing Dunn's death by careless driving in 2022, and sentenced to an eight-month prison term that was to be suspended for 12 months. According to the Owers review, she was also disqualified from driving for 12 months, but refused to comply with the UK judge's request that she return to the UK for sentencing. One particularly maddening sentence in the Owers review notes that "it is understood that she voluntarily agreed to undertake some community work in the US."
It's vague, at best, and seems unlikely to bring much comfort to Dunn's family and friends. However, the loophole that allowed the Sacoolas family to leave, and for Anne to have diplomatic immunity, was closed in 2020. That's something, at least.
Don't worry, the review gets worse
It's difficult to read the 40-page review in its entirety and not feel upset on behalf of Dunn's loved ones. I can't imagine what it must have felt like to live through this experience over the past several years, and to maybe feel some small amount of vindication now in reading this report.
The review lays out multiple instances of miscommunication, delayed communication, or completely nonexistent communication between various UK bodies and the Dunn family over the months and years following their son's death. One particularly troubling segment reads as follows, and I'll quote it here in its entirety so you can feel its full weight.
"There was a large US presence at Croughton within a relatively small community, and there were rumours about US personnel being withdrawn following other incidents. More specifically, Harry [Dunn's] father was the head of maintenance at the school attended by two of the Sacoolas children. Along with other heads of department, he had been sent a memo saying that the children had been suddenly withdrawn from school and had returned to the US. An internet search by Harry's stepfather revealed Mrs. Sacoolas' personal details and photograph."
In other words, what you think you've just read is correct. Dunn's family found out about who had hit and killed their son by putting two and two together and conducting their own Internet search; not because someone in a position of authority reached out to them and informed them first.
The report goes on to say, in the next paragraph, that "therefore, by the time the family was officially told who had driven the car and what had happened to her, they already knew. This understandably created distrust both of the message and the messengers: the belief that there had been a conspiracy between the UK and US authorities to secretly 'spirit her out', with information deliberately withheld from the family."
The Owers review goes on to note protracted delays in communicating information to Dunn's family about the case, including noting that "at this early stage, when emotions were most raw, the family were told nothing for a month, until they were presented with the outcome of a complex sequence of events, apparently resulting in the inability to hold anyone accountable for the death. At this stage, both the Crown Prosecution Service and police said that there was little or no chance of doing so."
The report goes on to sum this spiraling sequence of bad communication up as being "institutional and cultural, rather than specific to individuals or to this particular case." It goes on to make a series of recommendations about how in the future, communication between both affected departments within the UK government and affected families (particularly when death is involved) can be improved.
They aren't requirements; they are recommendations, and it's anyone's guess as to whether any or all of them may go on to be implemented. One bright spot in this report notes that the UK's Road Safety Foundation conducted a road safety audit around multiple US military bases in the wake of this accident, including RAF Croughton. Harry Dunn's mother was directly involved, and a number of improvements including better signage reminding drivers to drive on the left, as well as better road training for US personnel has been implemented. In fact, Dunn's mother received an MBE earlier in 2025 in recognition of her "outstanding services to road safety."
Following the release of this report, the BBC reported on a statement from Charlotte Charles, Dunn's mother. She very understandably called this review "a hugely emotional experience" that "triggered a lot of anger." She went on to say that "having turned to the authorities for help, we got nothing from them."
It's frustrating and infuriating, on multiple levels. While it seems that the family has been and continues to do the best that they can to move forward (see Charles' services to road safety), there's no way that an experience like this doesn't change your life forever. Here's hoping that at least some (if not all) of the recommendations suggested by this report are enacted, so that some good can come out of an undeniably horrible experience that absolutely did not have to be and should not have been this way.
