Key facts
- US military courts in the UK are prosecuting alleged rapes as lesser offenses like 'sexual assault'.
- The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has a narrower definition of rape than British law.
- British law defines rape based on non-consensual penetration, while UCMJ requires proof of force or intoxication.
- Victims are often tried in court martials by American military personnel when local police cede jurisdiction.
- Experts and victims report that this legal discrepancy causes further trauma and a sense of injustice.
American service members accused of rape on British soil are frequently prosecuted for lesser offenses, such as sexual assault, under the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), a discrepancy that experts and victims say exacerbates trauma and undermines justice.
While British law defines rape broadly as non-consensual penetration, the UCMJ's Article 120 has a narrower definition, requiring proof of force or the administration of an intoxicant. Cases where these elements are not proven, or where the victim voluntarily consumed alcohol, are often charged as sexual assault, carrying significantly lighter sentences.
More than 12,000 U.S. military personnel are stationed in the UK. Although UK law enforcement has primary jurisdiction, local police often defer to the American military, drawing British victims into an unfamiliar court-martial system. These trials are often presided over by panels of American military personnel.
Victims report that the legal terminology and process are alienating and degrading. Sarah Steele, a victim in the case of Capt Jacob Wulfson, described the experience of having to repeatedly explain legal distinctions as exhausting and retraumatizing. Wulfson was ultimately convicted of strangulation but acquitted of sexual assault charges.
In another instance, airman Tyrion Davis was convicted of one count of sexual assault after being accused of rape by two British women, but acquitted of numerous other charges. Experts emphasize that the validation provided by the justice system's labeling of an event is crucial for a victim's recovery, and a denial of this validation can cause further trauma.
Critics of Article 120 argue that its definition of rape was not developed in consultation with victims' rights groups. Former military prosecutors and legal experts suggest the system's structure, designed for military discipline rather than victim justice, contributes to these issues. The lack of respect, dignity, and a feeling of being heard in these proceedings can lead to secondary victimisation, which some survivors find more damaging than the initial assault.