The short version
- Internal Ministry of Defence communications suggest Cambridgeshire police improperly ceded control of an investigation involving a US pilot to American military authorities.
- The case involved the strangulation of a British woman by an off-duty serviceman, leading to his prosecution in a US court-martial rather than a UK criminal court.
- A high-level government inquiry is now examining how frequently such jurisdictional transfers occur and whether they undermine protections for victims in the United Kingdom.
Internal documents from the British Ministry of Defence reveal that senior officials privately concluded a local police force violated international agreements by allowing US military authorities to take control of a serious criminal investigation. The records, obtained through freedom of information requests, show that MoD staff believed the handover of jurisdiction in the case of Captain Jacob Wulfson was inconsistent with established treaties governing the conduct of American forces stationed in the United Kingdom.
The controversy centers on the December 2023 assault of Sarah Steele, a British woman, by Wulfson, a US Air Force pilot. The incident occurred in Wulfson’s flat in Cambridge while he was off duty. Cambridgeshire Police initially responded to the report but subsequently allowed United States military police to assume command of the investigation. This decision resulted in Wulfson being tried under American military law at Lakenheath Air Base in Suffolk, rather than facing prosecution in a British criminal court.
According to the disclosed correspondence, MoD officials based in Washington expressed strong reservations about the transfer. In a memo dated July 8, they noted that the case did not appear to meet the strict criteria required for the visiting force to assume jurisdiction. The agreement between the two nations grants UK police primary rights to investigate crimes committed by Americans on British soil, except in narrow circumstances such as offenses committed on duty or against other military personnel.
One official wrote that the decision-making process regarding Steele’s case seemed at odds with the clear terms of the treaty. Another stated that, based on their understanding of the facts, the matter should have remained under UK court jurisdiction. These internal critiques highlight a significant disconnect between local police actions and the strategic interests of the British government in maintaining legal sovereignty over serious crimes committed by foreign military personnel.
The case has drawn sharp criticism from Downing Street, which described the lack of UK involvement in the prosecution as deeply distressing. The government has since launched a high-level inquiry involving the Home Office, Ministry of Justice, and Foreign Office to examine how and why police forces have been transferring investigations into serious crimes to US military police. Police chiefs are also participating in this scrutiny, which aims to clarify jurisdictional decision-making processes.
Wulfson was convicted of strangling an intimate partner but acquitted of sexual assault charges. He received a six-month confinement sentence at Lakenheath and was dismissed from the Air Force. Steele testified during the court-martial, describing her experience as degrading and distressing. The proceedings were conducted entirely by American lawyers before an all-male jury of fellow air force officers, raising concerns about the adequacy of protections afforded to British victims in foreign military tribunals.
Broader reporting has highlighted a pattern in which US forces frequently request jurisdiction over their personnel, and UK police often agree even when they hold primary investigative responsibility. Critics argue that this practice forces British victims to navigate an unfamiliar legal system that may not offer the same safeguards as domestic courts. The current inquiry seeks to address these systemic issues and ensure greater clarity in future cases.
Cambridgeshire Police have stated they are reviewing the case with assistance from US Air Force lawyers and remain engaged with the victim. They emphasized cooperation with government partners to improve jurisdictional protocols. As the inquiry progresses, it will likely examine a series of similar cases uncovered recently, aiming to prevent future breaches of the bilateral agreement and protect the rights of victims in the UK.
The disclosure of these internal views underscores the tension between diplomatic relations and legal accountability. While the US military aims to prosecute its own personnel within the bounds of existing agreements, British officials are now pressing for stricter adherence to those same rules. The outcome of the cross-government review could reshape how serious crimes involving foreign troops are handled in the future.
This development marks a significant moment in UK-US legal cooperation, highlighting the need for transparent and consistent application of jurisdictional treaties. As public awareness grows regarding the implications of such transfers, pressure mounts on authorities to ensure that British victims receive justice through appropriate domestic channels whenever possible.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗UK police should not have let US force take over airbase trial, MoD documents show
