Evidence suggesting serious offenses by British special forces in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013 has been referred to military police. The findings, uncovered during an inquiry, could lead to prosecutions for murder and manslaughter.
The potential prosecution of UK special forces personnel over alleged unlawful killings in Afghanistan raises significant questions about accountability for military actions and the integrity of investigations into alleged war crimes.
British special forces personnel may face prosecution following the referral of evidence to military police, suggesting serious offenses were committed in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013. The evidence came to light during court proceedings on Monday and marks the first public acknowledgment by the SAS Inquiry that its findings could lead to criminal prosecutions.
The referral was made by UK Special Forces (UKSF) earlier this year under the Armed Forces Act, which defines Schedule 2 serious offenses to include murder and manslaughter. The allegations relate to a number of detention operations carried out by British personnel during that period.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) discovered the evidence following an investigation by the SAS Inquiry. The Defence Serious Crime Unit (DSCU), a specialist unit established in 2022, has conducted a scoping exercise of the material. However, criminal investigations have been paused until the inquiry concludes, with the MoD deeming it inappropriate to proceed while the inquiry is ongoing.
The Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan is examining allegations that the British Army's Special Air Service (SAS) unlawfully killed individuals during detention operations and that senior officials attempted to conceal the circumstances. BBC Panorama has been investigating these allegations for over eight years, and the public inquiry was established in 2022 in response to these revelations.
The DSCU referral emerged during a High Court hearing initiated by a witness to the inquiry. This witness, a senior British military officer who served in Afghanistan, has been granted permission to have the inquiry judicially reviewed. The officer's legal team argued that the exclusion of military witnesses' legal teams from closed-door evidence hearings with whistleblowers was unfair, as the officer should have an opportunity to question allegations made against him.
Lawyers for the inquiry stated that it "must be able to obtain highly sensitive information" from individuals concerned about providing evidence, citing fears of "grievous consequences by UKSF" if their identities were revealed.
Pick the topics you care about. Get only what matters, on your cadence.