For decades, campaigners have fought to secure basic protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence in UK courts. These hard-won rights include separate entrances, video evidence, and screens to shield accusers from their abusers. Yet, as the case of British woman Sarah Steele reveals, these protections vanish when the accused is a US military member stationed in the UK.
The Guardian's investigation into the trial of US Airman Capt Jacob Wulfson has exposed a shocking loophole. Steele, a British woman assaulted in her own country, faced a US military court where none of the UK's victim safeguards applied. This case has stunned even seasoned campaigners like Jess Phillips, who has dedicated her career to victim advocacy.
The Case That Broke the Rules
Capt Wulfson was charged under US military law with "aggravated sexual contact"—a crime that does not exist in the UK legal system. He was ultimately acquitted of that charge but convicted of "non-fatal strangulation" and sentenced to six months in a correctional facility. Crucially, the sentence is subject to automatic appeal, leaving Steele without closure.
Throughout the trial, Steele was forced to sit in the same courtroom as her alleged attacker. In a UK civilian court, she would have had the right to give evidence from behind a screen or via video link. Instead, she faced a firebrand US military defence lawyer whose questioning would likely have been deemed inappropriate in a British courtroom.
Why UK Protections Didn't Apply
Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and the UK, US military personnel accused of crimes can be tried by US military courts rather than UK civilian courts. This agreement, designed to maintain military discipline, effectively strips British victims of the legal protections they would otherwise enjoy.
Key protections Steele missed out on include:
- Separate entrances to avoid facing the accused
- Video evidence and giving testimony from behind a screen
- Limits on questioning about sexual history and medical records
- An independent jury not connected to the military base
In Steele's case, the all-male jury consisted entirely of personnel from the same base as Capt Wulfson. As Phillips notes, this is akin to a UK politician being tried only by colleagues from their own party—a clear conflict of interest.
The Broader Implications for British Women
This case highlights a systemic failure in the protection of British victims of sexual violence. While UK courts have made significant progress in recent years, these advancements do not extend to trials held under US military jurisdiction. The result is a two-tier justice system where a victim's rights depend on the nationality of their attacker.
Campaigners are now calling for a review of the SOFA agreement to ensure that British victims receive the same protections regardless of who is on trial. The case of Sarah Steele serves as a stark reminder that the fight for victims' rights is far from over.
What Needs to Change
To prevent future injustices, several reforms are urgently needed:
| Issue | Current Situation | Proposed Reform |
|---|---|---|
| Victim protections | Not guaranteed in US military courts | Extend UK victim safeguards to all trials on UK soil |
| Jury composition | All-male, base-affiliated jurors | Ensure independent, diverse juries |
| Legal representation | Defence lawyers follow US rules | Apply UK standards of evidence and questioning |
| Appeal process | Automatic appeal leaves victims in limbo | Streamline appeals to provide timely closure |
FAQ: Understanding the Sarah Steele Case
What is the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)?
SOFA is a treaty between the US and the UK that governs the legal status of US military personnel stationed in Britain. It allows US military courts to prosecute service members for crimes committed in the UK, often bypassing the UK civilian justice system.
Why didn't Sarah Steele receive UK victim protections?
Because her case was tried in a US military court, not a UK civilian court. The SOFA agreement means UK laws on victim safeguards—such as separate entrances and limits on questioning—do not apply in these proceedings.
What can be done to fix this loophole?
Campaigners are urging the UK government to renegotiate the SOFA agreement to mandate that all trials on UK soil adhere to UK victim protection standards. Alternatively, cases involving serious sexual offences could be automatically transferred to UK courts.
