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