US court replacing UK law for rape on British soil by US fighter pilot/

[Treaclewell]

The case of a woman raped by a US airman has been weighing on my mind. I found this on line, which doesn't mention the victim at all. She, an academic focussed on VAWG, was drugged as part of the attack. The case, thpugh the event took place off base and off duty, was tried as a US court martial on Lakenheath.
I am steaming about this. It implies that our law is not good enough for US standards. It originates in a treaty of 1951. I don't expect that negotiators thought that this sort of crime would be occurring. But surely, a crime which is in breach of British law, carried out on British soil, and harming a British citizen should be tried in British courts.
There was another case - when the man got back to Florida, the FBI got involved and the man got a more fitting punishment, but he was ground crew and black.

Capt Jacob Wulfson was tried by court martial for strangulation and was convicted, but he was acquitted of sexual assault. He was dismissed from the military and sentenced to six months' detention.
BBC bileckilawgroup.com

Overview of the Lakenheath Case
Capt Jacob Wulfson, an American fighter pilot stationed at RAF Lakenheath, was involved in a significant legal case concerning allegations of assault.
Court Martial Details
Charges: Wulfson faced charges of strangulation and sexual assault.
Verdict: He was convicted of strangulation but acquitted of sexual assault.
Sentence: Following his conviction, he was dismissed from the military and sentenced to six months' detention.
Context of the Incident
Location: The incident occurred in Cambridge while Wulfson was off duty.
Legal Proceedings: The case was handled through a court martial, which is a military court designed to try members of the armed forces for military offenses.
This case has raised discussions about the jurisdiction of military courts over incidents that occur off base and the implications for service members involved in such legal matters.
BBC bileckilawgroup.com

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3xd04k97do

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jun/29/cambridgeshire-police-face-questions-sexual-assault-case-us-military

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8d254301pjo

It’s because he was active duty air force that he was court martialed by the DoD. It’s pretty standard and nothing to do with British law not being good enough. It’s also not US law in the sense that military members are not under regular US criminal laws for civilians.

When British soldiers commit crimes, they are court martialed by the MoD and not the local civilian justice system.

I don't expect that negotiators thought that this sort of crime would be occurring.

Oh they knew soldiers rape local women.

Well it shouldn't be bloody standard. Shoot down x enemy planes and you can award yourself an unconsenting woman of your allied nation, breaking the ally's law.
What are you fighting for? Freedom?

Conviction rates for rape in DoD military courts range between 70-80% compared to convictions for rape in a British civilian court of 1-2% and a US civilian court of 7-8%.

So the military justice system seems to be working better than the civilian systems in bringing rapists to justice.

Of course, rape is a big problem in all the armed forces. When these men aren’t raping the women in uniform serving with them, they’re raping local women. Something about giving men the power of life and death makes them feel especially entitled to women’s bodies too.

An eye opening book is Our Bodies, Their Battlefield by Christina Lamb. It wasn’t until the 21st century that rape was considered a war crime. It is infuriating how slow progress is on tackling VAWG.

Perhaps the women in question could contact the FBI and file a complaint against him, the FBI could investigate like they did in the Florida case mentioned in the OP.
I agree with the poster above, it might seem like it's USA law on UK soil but the rules surrounding foreign forces in our country apply to our forces in other countries.

The rules aren't designed to protect people like this man but they are designed to protect our forces from being arrested by regime's who just want to use the opportunity to take a hostages to force political concessions from the UK government.

The rules aren't designed to protect people like this man but they are designed to protect our forces from being arrested by regime's who just want to use the opportunity to take a hostages to force political concessions from the UK government.

I hadn’t thought of that! Such an excellent point. Plus too, if the military member in question knows state secrets, wouldn’t the foreign regime have their intelligence goons interrogate him prior to handing him over to the courts for trial? So it might also be to protect military secrets as well. Even allies keep secrets from each other. For example, the US misled the UK in order to get us to join the coalition invasion of Iraq:

The UK was misled over former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's access to weapons of mass destruction, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.
Mr Brown says US intelligence, which challenged the extent of Iraq's WMD stockpile, was not shared with the UK before it joined the Iraq War.
In an extract from his memoir, the ex-Labour leader says "we were not just misinformed, but misled".
Mr Brown says he became aware of the "crucial" paper after leaving office.
The Iraq War - which divided British public opinion - began in March 2003, with the conflict and its aftermath claiming the lives of 179 UK troops.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41872701

imo it should be investigated and prosecuted by the country authorities where the crime took place.

but it seems that (american) military are above the law. there will be an investigation. there might be a dis-honorable discharge. there will not be justice.

I remember being aghast about this when US fighter pilots killed a cable car full of tourists in italy.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/february-3/marine-jet-severs-ski-lift-cable-in-italy

The conviction rates for rape in English courts are not 1-2% which you put, they are currently at 63.4%.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/completed-rape-prosecutions-reach-highest-level-decade-new-data-shows

I totally get your point of view OP, but this is part of a much bigger picture where armed forces personnel are protected from persecution by other states. We cannot insist that this man be tried in British courts, because we don’t want UK troops prosecuted in other countries - for laws we don’t agree with like sodomy in countries where it’s illegal - or arrested on false pretences to become a political pawn or to be tortured for state secrets.

I want UK troops to face prosecution for raping women in other countries. It's perfectly possible to have a system of waiving diplomatic immunity for serious crimes but besides soldiers aren't actually supposed to have diplomatic immunity in host countries.

Re the "prosecution for sodomy" where that's illegal there are ways around that to make sure soldiers aren't prosecuted. But it absolutely shouldn't be extended to rape.

Especially hypocritical given the current US administration yapping about two tier justice systems in the UK. The only 2 tier system turns out to be one they are absolutely fine with. And actually we don't have full sovereignty if foreign soldiers are going to rape British women on British soil and the police can do nothing about it.

(oh and on the subject of arrested on false pretences to be a pawn...) Either these countries are ones we have a bad relationship with like Russia/Iran. In which case they absolutely would be arresting UK troops anyway why wouldn't they? Or they are ones we have a good relationship who want us there (Estonia etc). In which case where is this political pawn stuff coming in? Ideally we wouldn't have troops based where the government could randomly arrest them for no reason. If we did, then the situation with rhe US bases in the UK would make no difference either way.

There is no convention/international law that says troops should be immune from prosecution by local authorities. In fact very much the opposite.

As a foreigner he could have said he hadn’t received any leaflets telling him rape was wrong and then the British courts would have let him off with a slap on the wrist.

The UK isn't the only place where this type of thing happens, this murder was committed recently by an American soldier off base in Japan

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cme3xw4yy28do

This article led me to this older story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyxjnee9rzo

A local woman was choked and nearly raped by an American soldier. He seems to have been tried and sentenced by a Japanese court. Perhaps it depends on the details of the treaty drawn up between the foreign power and the host country?

No, it is 1-2% of reported rapes. The 64% is the conviction rate for prosecutions for rape. Most reports of rape never reach the prosecution stage.

There has been lots of outrage in the past in Japan with cases so I think that might have informed it. I don't know if it is an issue with treaties. If there are specific treaties with the US saying that if an American soldier kills a child or rapes a woman on UK soil (of base) they can't be arrested then that's outrageous and not standard and should be a source of public knowledge. It's more likely to be misapplication/misinterpretation of the rules (eg Anne Sacoolas being "mistakenly" believed to have diplomatic immunity and being allowed to flee the country) or women not being properly informed of their rights and of what agreeing to a military tribunal would entail.

Some people seem to be confusing diplomatic immunity for Embassy staff etc with soldiers. Soldiers living on a military base in another country don't qualify for diplomatic immunity. It would be quite terrible if soldiers were automatically immune. The difference is embassy staff will often be posted in "unfriendly" countries so the level of protection needs to be higher. Soldiers tend to be posted in bases of allies (unless part of an invading army). If there was a concerted effort by said allies to arrest soldiers and extract military secrets then at that point you have bigger problems. Crimes committed on bases are different because then it's under their jurisdiction. But Kenya is not under UK jurisdiction just because we have a base there. Likewise the whole of Okinawa/England are born under US jurisdiction.

The only time it's appropriate to insist on court marshall for rape etc is when there is no chance of the host country prosecuting so the military does as a second resort.