Ministers are being urged to demand a full investigation after US authorities reportedly removed an American diplomat from Britain amid allegations involving indecent images of children.
The unnamed embassy worker was allegedly taken from his London home during an early-morning operation on 25 August before being transported to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire and flown to the United States.
Conservative shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy has now written to Justice Secretary Alex Norris, warning that the reported actions could represent “a cover-up”.
He said the diplomat should face an English court if evidence shows that offences were committed in Britain and demanded to know what ministers were doing to secure a proper investigation.
The Metropolitan Police has confirmed it is liaising with American authorities over suspected offences in London. However, the exact sequence of events remains disputed.
Reports claim British police were told only after the diplomat had been removed. The US embassy says it “quickly informed” UK law enforcement and has described the man’s move to America as a reassignment connected to an ongoing investigation.
No charge has been announced and the diplomat has not been publicly identified.
Nick Timothy demands answers from ministers
Timothy raised his concerns in a letter to Norris following reports about the operation.
According to LBC, the Conservative MP warned that the diplomat may have committed offences while living in Britain.
He wrote:
“If this is the case, the diplomat should face trial in an English court.”
Timothy also argued that the incident appeared to form part of a “concerning pattern” in which alleged offences involving American personnel stationed in Britain were handled through the US system.
He asked the justice secretary to explain what action was being taken and how the Government intended to ensure that the diplomat received “a proper investigation in this country”.
His intervention increases the political pressure on ministers, who are understood to be in contact with the American embassy.
The Government has declined to discuss the case in detail because the US investigation remains active.
A spokesperson said:
“We expect all foreign diplomats in the UK to abide by our laws, in the same way we expect all UK diplomats to do so when posted overseas.”
What reportedly happened in Putney?
The diplomat is reported to be a former member of the US military assigned to the American embassy in Nine Elms.
According to The Sun’s original investigation, the case began after authorities in America started investigating the diplomat’s US-based brother.
The brother is alleged to have sent illegal material to the embassy worker in London.
American officials are said to have obtained a court order in the US before personnel entered the diplomat’s private home in Putney on 25 August.
A source claimed indecent images of children were discovered at the property. The claim has not been independently confirmed by British investigators and no evidence has been released publicly.
The diplomat was reportedly taken in a military convoy to RAF Fairford, where the United States Air Force has a significant presence.
Flight records cited by the newspaper showed that a Kalitta Air Boeing 747 cargo aircraft arrived at Fairford from Chicago on 24 August.
It reportedly left the following afternoon and flew to Dover Air Force Base in Delaware before continuing to Chicago.
There was no formal extradition request to the British authorities.
US embassy says diplomat was ‘reassigned’
The US embassy has confirmed that allegations were made about somebody assigned to its London mission, but it has not accepted the description of events as an unauthorised removal.
A spokesperson said:
“We quickly informed UK law enforcement and took swift action, and we will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners regarding these allegations.
“The individual in question has been reassigned to the United States in conjunction with an ongoing investigation.”
The US State Department also said it took the allegations seriously but would not discuss the investigation.
The American account leaves several important questions unanswered, including whether the diplomat agreed to travel, what happened inside his Putney home and whether any potential evidence was removed from Britain.
Describing the move as a reassignment does not establish whether the man left voluntarily or was compelled to go.
Reports have said American personnel “seized” him, but neither government has publicly explained what legal authority was used.
Metropolitan Police investigating suspected London offences
The Metropolitan Police confirmed it was contacted by US authorities on 25 August.
A spokesperson said:
“US authorities made us aware of an investigation they are conducting into suspected offences in London relating to indecent images of children.
“We continue to liaise with them regarding this matter.”
The statement does not disclose what time the force was contacted or whether the diplomat had already left Britain.
That gap is significant because the reported conduct is alleged to have taken place in London.
British investigators may need to establish whether illegal material was received, stored or shared from the Putney address. They could also need access to devices and communications to determine whether anybody else in the UK was involved.
There is currently no public evidence that the diplomat distributed illegal images or communicated with other suspects in Britain.
Could American personnel arrest someone in Britain?
American law-enforcement officers and military personnel do not generally have powers of arrest on British soil.
If somebody in the UK is wanted for proceedings in America and refuses to return voluntarily, the established route is a formal extradition request considered through the British courts.
An American court order would not, by itself, give US personnel authority to carry out a compulsory arrest at a private address in London.
Extradition lawyer Edward Grange told The Sun that deliberately bypassing the extradition process would raise serious questions about the legality of the operation.
The diplomat’s status could complicate matters further.
Full diplomatic agents normally have immunity from arrest and criminal proceedings in the country where they are posted. Not everyone working inside an embassy receives identical protection, however, and the man’s precise status has not been disclosed.
The Crown Prosecution Service’s guidance says the Foreign Office can ask another country to waive a person’s immunity so British police can arrest, interview or charge them.
If immunity is not waived in a serious case, the Government can request the diplomat’s withdrawal or declare them persona non grata.
Diplomatic immunity could therefore have restricted the immediate action available to Scotland Yard. It would not automatically authorise foreign personnel to exercise police powers in Britain.
Timothy points to ‘concerning pattern’
Timothy compared the case with that of Captain Jacob Wulfson, an American fighter pilot accused of strangling a woman in Cambridge while off duty.
Wulfson was tried at a US military court rather than an English court. He was convicted of strangulation and jailed for six months but acquitted of sexual assault and aggravated sexual contact.
The latest incident has also revived memories of Anne Sacoolas, the US State Department employee who left Britain following the 2019 crash that killed 19-year-old Harry Dunn.
The US asserted diplomatic immunity on her behalf and later rejected a British extradition request. Sacoolas eventually appeared at the Old Bailey by video link and pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving. She received an eight-month suspended sentence.
The circumstances of the current case are different and many of the central facts have yet to be established.
It is not known whether the diplomat claimed immunity, agreed to return to America or is facing criminal proceedings there. The possession allegations have not been tested in any court.
The immediate question for the Government is why British police were not involved from the beginning if suspected offences had taken place at a private London address.
Ministers must now establish what authority American personnel used, what evidence was taken from the country and whether the diplomat will be made available to British investigators.
Leave a Reply