US Military Personnel Tried by Courts Martial for Crimes in the UK
A US fighter pilot strangled a woman in England. Why did the case conclude with a military trial deemed ‘degrading’?
A little-known system allows US military personnel to be tried through courts martial for alleged crimes committed in the UK, a practice increasingly scrutinised.
There are over 12,000 US personnel stationed in the UK. Except for Lossiemouth in Scotland, all US bases are located in England.
American military personnel can sometimes bypass the British legal system, even when alleged offences occurred off duty. This raises questions about why this occurs and whether UK law enforcement is abdicating its responsibility to investigate and prosecute crimes on UK soil.
What Crimes Do US Military Personnel Commit in the UK and How Are They Prosecuted?
has identified a broad spectrum of convictions involving US service members, including sexual assaults, paedophilia, indecent exposure, violent attacks, drink-driving, speeding, and driving uninsured vehicles. Many of these crimes involved British victims and took place outside US military bases.
Numerous perpetrators were prosecuted in American military courts located within US bases. These hearings, known as courts martial, occur behind heavily guarded perimeter fences. Unlike British criminal hearings, the public cannot freely attend or observe court martial proceedings.
What Is the Court Martial System?
The court martial system aims to maintain order and discipline within the armed forces, a concept dating back to Roman times. It empowers US military commanders to convene hearings to try personnel accused of misconduct.
These trials operate under a legal system separate from civilian courts. They are held on military premises, with judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers who are legally trained but employed by the military in specialised units. The jury comprises members of the armed forces.
The conduct of US forces is governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). This code covers expected offences such as disobeying orders, desertion, war crimes, and drug use while on duty, as well as sexual violence and paedophilia.
Some offences address perceived moral transgressions, like infidelity towards a partner, which is seen as undermining the "good order" of a unit (punishable by up to one year in military jail), or gambling with lower ranks (punishable by up to three months imprisonment). A US Air Force spokesperson stated its proceedings "are fair, transparent and thorough."
How Are Crimes on UK Soil Prosecuted Through Court Martial?
The US has maintained military bases in Britain since World War II. The operational terms are defined in a little-known agreement made with the British government in 1951.
This Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) determines whether the US or UK government prosecutes American troops. It specifies that the US government prosecutes its military personnel if offences were committed while on duty, or against other US armed forces members, their property, or dependants such as spouses or children.
In all other cases, British police technically have the first option to prosecute American military personnel. However, in practice, the process is ambiguous. The US appears to claim broader jurisdiction, and British police and prosecutors often allow this.
Why Are UK Authorities Voluntarily Relinquishing Jurisdiction?
A clause in the 1951 agreement allows the US to request that British police or prosecutors relinquish a case. The British are required to give such requests "sympathetic" consideration but may refuse.
A US Air Force expert on the military justice system said the UK often handed cases over to the US. He explained that the US would defer if the British insisted on prosecuting, but added:
"Oftentimes the UK will turn it back over to the US military and allow us to prosecute it."
If you have information about this story, you can contact Harry Davies through various secure methods, including app’s encrypted messaging feature, email at harry.davies@the.com, or Signal Messenger using the username 'hfd.90'. More details are available at the.com/tips.
The Pentagon generally prefers to prosecute its own military personnel, even for crimes committed on UK soil, arguing this approach better maintains discipline.
"It’s very important to our commanders to be able to have consistent, standardised punishments and systems for our troops. They want to send a deterrent message," the US Air Force expert said. "It is a huge deal."
Does the UK Ever Refuse to Let the US Prosecute?
British police and prosecutors do not maintain statistics on refusals to relinquish jurisdiction, but there are instances when UK law enforcement insists on prosecuting cases themselves.
One example is the case of Mikayla Hayes, an American mechanic based at the Lakenheath airbase. In August 2022, while driving her own car from the base to her home in Downham Market, Norfolk, she collided with a motorbike ridden by Matthew Day, a 33-year-old Briton, who died as a result.
The US military sought to take over the investigation, arguing Norfolk police lacked authority to arrest Hayes.
The US can issue a formal certificate to British authorities asserting that a military personnel member should be tried in a court martial, which it did in this case. However, the Crown Prosecution Service successfully challenged this certificate, which was quashed. Hayes was prosecuted at Norwich Crown Court and acquitted of causing death by careless driving.
Plane spotters outside RAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, which supports the US Air Force. Photograph: Derek Mitchell/Alamy
