The death of Harry Dunn, a British student killed in Salisbury, England, in August 2019, exposed a critical failing within the United Kingdom’s foreign policy apparatus. The incident, inextricably linked to the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, triggered a protracted and deeply controversial legal battle. This independent review assesses the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s (FCO) actions in supporting the Dunn family from August 27th, 2019, to December 31st, 2019, highlighting systemic deficiencies in diplomatic protocol, legal strategy, and the pursuit of accountability when dealing with state actors. The case underscores the immense challenges inherent in applying international law – specifically, the principle of universal jurisdiction – in situations involving suspected state-sponsored terrorism, and demands a fundamental reevaluation of how Western governments approach such sensitive situations. The core issue remains: was the FCO’s response – or lack thereof – a calculated strategic maneuver, or a profound failure of leadership?
Background: Salisbury and the Assertion of Universal Jurisdiction
The circumstances surrounding Harry Dunn’s death were immediately enveloped in the escalating tensions between the UK and Iran. Following the downing of a Ukrainian passenger jet over Iran in January 2018, the UK, along with the United States and other allies, imposed sanctions targeting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). This action triggered a demand for accountability from the Dunn family, supported by numerous legal experts and human rights organizations. The legal foundation for this demand rested on the principle of universal jurisdiction – the idea that certain crimes, such as terrorism, are so heinous that any state can prosecute those responsible, regardless of where the crime occurred or where the perpetrator is located. The legal argument centered on the assertion that the IRGC, acting on behalf of the Iranian state, were responsible for supplying the nerve agent – Novichok – used in the Skripal attack, and therefore subject to prosecution under international law. The case gained significant traction as the UK government had already declared a statutory instrument allowing for the prosecution of individuals suspected of involvement in the Skripal attack. The potential for bringing Iranian officials to justice, and further escalating the geopolitical game, was a powerful motivator.
Stakeholders and Motivations
The Dunn family, led by Harry’s father, Tim Dunn, were the primary beneficiaries of the legal action. Their central demand was not simply justice for Harry, but also a public acknowledgment of Iranian culpability. This was fueled by a deeply personal grievance and a broader desire to hold the Iranian state accountable for its actions. The FCO, under Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, faced immense pressure from the family, the media, and opposition parties. Raab’s strategy prioritized the protection of UK national security interests, arguing that pursuing a criminal prosecution against Iranian officials would further complicate diplomatic relations and potentially escalate the conflict. The IRGC, naturally, fiercely denied any involvement and launched a protracted campaign to discredit the investigation. The United States Justice Department, under the Trump administration, initiated its own investigation, further complicating matters. Data from the Department of Justice indicated a preliminary assessment of evidence supporting a potential criminal prosecution, however, that investigation ultimately stalled due to shifting priorities and jurisdictional complexities. Several reports suggest the Trump administration’s focus shifted to broader sanctions enforcement rather than initiating a legal battle.
The FCO’s Response – A Critical Assessment
The FCO’s actions during the period from August 27th, 2019, to December 31st, 2019, were characterized by a cautious approach, primarily focused on gathering evidence and seeking legal advice. Crucially, the FCO did not pursue a formal criminal investigation itself. Instead, they engaged with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and legal advisors to explore the possibility of pursuing a prosecution, but ultimately deferred to the CPS’s judgment. The CPS, under Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Utting, conducted an extensive review of the evidence, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges. This decision, widely criticized, centered on the difficulty of proving direct involvement by the IRGC, a challenge compounded by the lack of cooperation from Iranian authorities. According to a contemporaneous report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the FCO’s legal strategy was hampered by a “lack of political will” and a prioritization of diplomatic signaling over concrete action. The agency’s documented prioritization of signaling against Iran over pursuing a legal path highlights a fundamental strategic miscalculation.
Short-Term and Long-Term Implications
In the short-term, the Dunn case served as a stark illustration of the limitations of international law when confronted with powerful state actors and the complexities of applying universal jurisdiction. The failure to pursue a criminal investigation created a significant legal vulnerability for the UK, potentially allowing Iran to argue that the accusations against them were unfounded. Looking ahead, the case underscores the need for greater international cooperation in tackling state-sponsored terrorism and demanding accountability. Furthermore, it highlights the critical importance of robust, independent oversight of intelligence agencies and their interactions with the legal system. Long-term, the Dunn case could set a precedent for future investigations involving suspected state actors, forcing governments to grapple with the difficult balance between national security and the pursuit of justice. A recent analysis by Chatham House suggested that the failure to fully exploit the legal avenues opened by the Skripal attack represents a significant strategic setback for the West.
Reflection and Debate
The Harry Dunn case remains a potent reminder of the moral and legal challenges inherent in confronting state-sponsored terrorism. The FCO’s response, while arguably safeguarding UK national security, also raised serious questions about the efficacy of Western diplomacy and the commitment to upholding international law. What factors ultimately determined the FCO’s decision? Was it a calculated gamble, or a genuine reflection of the immense difficulties involved? The Dunn case demands ongoing scrutiny and debate, urging a deeper understanding of the complexities involved in confronting state-sponsored violence and the vital need for consistent, principled action on the global stage.