Downing Street has expressed deep concern that an American fighter pilot, Captain Jacob Wulfson, was able to avoid a trial under English law for strangling a woman in Cambridge. The case was tried at a court martial on a US airbase, despite the alleged crime occurring while he was off-duty.
Case Details and Victim's Account
As first reported by the Guardian, the case was not investigated by local police but was instead handed over to the US military. The victim, Sarah Steele, an academic, met Cpt Wulfson on a dating app and arranged to meet at his flat while he was stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk. She left the next morning feeling something was wrong, later accusing him of non-consensual sex, drugging, and strangling her.
Ms Steele described being treated 'incredibly aggressively' by the pilot's defence team, stating: 'It was a very difficult system to be in, and at times I was treated incredibly aggressively, and I felt like I was on trial, and it became a character assassination.' She added that the defence 'attack you with assertions that are trying to undermine, say that you’re lying, say that you’re a problem, say that you’re all manner of evil things and that you’re creating this, and you’ve got to wade through that staring in the face of the accused.'
Government Response and Questions
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman questioned why the case never reached the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). He said: 'This is clearly a deeply distressing case, our thoughts are with the victim. She’s shown incredible bravery not only in her initial report to police, but also in coming forward to speak to the media to help get justice for others.' He added that the Government will 'look really carefully at what’s happened here, and we must stress that we’re still establishing the facts. But of course this is very concerning that a case like this never reached the CPS, but was investigated by US airbase police and heard in front of an all-male panel of air force officers.'
Justice minister Jake Richards described the case as 'really serious' and acknowledged 'issues' around the military courts system. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said: 'It’s a really serious case. It’s very good that it’s being raised by yourselves and others. I’m going to take it away back to the Ministry of Justice and make sure that we are looking into the details of this later.' He added: 'There are issues around military courts, whether that is in America or indeed our own, and how that interplays with our criminal courts and our civil courts. That’s always an area that we look at.'
Court Martial Process and Sentence
Cpt Wulfson was charged with sexual assault and aggravated sexual contact, but was ultimately found guilty only of strangulation. The judge in the court martial was a US air force colonel, and the jury was a panel of eight air force officers. Some British terms had to be explained to the panel, and Cpt Wulfson’s 'enemies killed in action count' as an F-35 pilot was used as mitigation for his sentence. He was sentenced to six months at a correctional facility at RAF Lakenheath.
Ms Steele's case would likely have been tried at a crown court had it been handled by the CPS. She called for clearer guidance on who should prosecute such cases: 'I think it’s really important that for the interests of justice and for the rights of victims, that we have clear framework discussion around this.'
Legal Framework and Political Reaction
There are around 12 active US air force bases across the UK. The US military justice system has a distinct legal framework separate from British civilian courts. Under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement 1951, US military authorities only have primary jurisdiction to prosecute in cases where an offence was committed on duty, towards another armed forces member, or towards a dependent.
Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy called on Justice Secretary David Lammy to 'urgently review' the case. In a letter, he stated: 'This case should have been fully investigated by the English police and prosecuted in our courts, with the defendant tried by a jury and the sentence determined by a judge. Therefore, I ask you urgently to review what happened in this case, confirm who decided to relinquish UK jurisdiction, and ensure that justice is served.'
