I suppose it could be argued that online whistleblower and now wanted man Julian Assange could have got himself off the hook had he been savvy enough when it all started unfolding to gain employment at the nearest Australian embassy.
Even just as the washer boy, for that would have provided him with at least a sniff of that intriguing thing called "diplomatic immunity".
Although of course the very title points out that this long-standing political state of affairs is in place for "diplomats".
It is an odd thing which I daresay many have never really been comfortable with, given that people like police officers, members of parliament, church hierarchy and even knights of the crown carry no "you're off the hook" sway when it comes to being held accountable for breaking the law.
But a visitor from a foreign land working within the realms of his or her embassy in their host country seemingly has this ability - if they and their political chiefs determine it is right to be applied.
Over the past four years there have been eight incidents when the laws of this land have been transgressed and where those at the centre of it have claimed diplomatic immunity.
In one case a diplomat was angered, and subsequently complained, over being asked to undergo a roadside breath test. Off the hook.
There have been a couple of incidents where diplomatic staff have been involved in assaults, and in both cases the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had sought waivers of diplomatic immunity, but that's as far as it got.
The diplomats at the centre of the accusations packed up and went home - unpunished - off the hook.
It is all a component of the Vienna Convention which states that diplomats cannot be prosecuted unless immunity is waived.
It very rarely is, it seems.
The immunity issue surfaced again last week when it was revealed that a Malaysian diplomat was being pursued in the wake of sexual assault allegations.
He had been able to return to Malaysia under what appeared to be a veil of misunderstanding within some quarters of foreign affairs and the Government. But his home country then stepped up to the mark and decreed that the man would be returned to New Zealand, in the company of a senior military officer, to rightly face the charges.
One very positive, sensible and creditable step in the right direction because if someone allegedly does wrong and needs to answer charges then the right and proper processes must be carried out. The Vienna Convention statute document writers could save a bit of ink if they left such an archaic clause out.