A US fighter pilot avoided a trial under English law for strangling a woman in Cambridge after the case was taken over by the American military, prompting Downing Street to question why the Crown Prosecution Service never became involved.
Captain Jacob Wulfson, an F-35 pilot stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, was tried by court martial at the airbase in April this year. He had been charged with sexual assault and aggravated sexual contact following an incident with a British academic, Sarah Steele, whom he met on a dating app in late 2023. He was found guilty only of strangulation and sentenced to six months in a correctional facility on the base. The judge was a US air force colonel and the jury consisted of eight air force officers — a panel Ms Steele noted was entirely male and not representative of society.
Downing Street’s concern
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman described the case as “very concerning” and said the Government would “look really carefully at what’s happened here”. He questioned why the case never reached the CPS but was instead investigated by US airbase police and heard in front of an all-male panel of air force officers. “Our thoughts are with the victim,” he added. “She’s shown incredible bravery not only in her initial report to police, but also in coming forward to speak to the media to help get justice for others.”
‘I felt like I was on trial’
Ms Steele, an academic, said she was treated “incredibly aggressively” by Wulfson’s defence team and felt as though she was the one being prosecuted. “It became a character assassination,” she said. “People are attacking you with assertions that are trying to undermine, say that you’re lying, say that you’re a problem … and you’ve got to wade through that staring in the face of the accused.”
She also highlighted that few protections available in English courts — such as giving evidence from behind a screen — were absent in the court martial. British terms had to be explained to the panel, and Wulfson’s “enemies killed in action count” as an F-35 pilot was used as mitigation for his sentence. He was also dismissed from the Air Force and issued a formal reprimand. Ms Steele said that no British officer had asked her if she wanted the case handed over to the US military, and that once the transfer happened “the train left the station”.
Why the US military took over
The case raises serious questions about how crimes committed by US service members in the UK are handled. Under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 1951 and the Visiting Forces Act 1952, the UK technically holds primary jurisdiction when a US service member commits an offence while off‑duty and off‑base — as Wulfson was when the incident occurred in Cambridge.
In practice, however, British police and prosecutors appear to cede jurisdiction to their US counterparts. A US Air Force spokesperson said jurisdiction was “negotiated” with Cambridgeshire police, who agreed to let the USAF take the lead. The Pentagon argues that prosecuting its own personnel is necessary to maintain discipline. Victims’ rights campaigners point out that recent changes in UK law — the Armed Forces Act 2021 — were intended to give victims a say in whether cases involving armed forces personnel are dealt with by civilian or military justice systems, but Ms Steele said she was not consulted.
Justice minister Jake Richards acknowledged the “issues” around the military courts system. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he called the case “really serious” and said the Ministry of Justice would examine it closely. “There are issues around military courts, whether that is in America or indeed our own, and how that interplays with our criminal courts and our civil courts. That’s always an area that we look at.” He added: “There should be a really thorough and objective look at this case.”
Calls for an urgent review
Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy has written to Justice Secretary David Lammy demanding an urgent review. In his letter, Mr Timothy argued that under the NATO SOFA, US military authorities only have primary jurisdiction in specific circumstances — when an offence is committed while on duty, against another armed forces member, or against a dependent. “This case should have been fully investigated by the English police and prosecuted in our courts, with the defendant tried by a jury and the sentence determined by a judge,” he wrote. He asked Mr Lammy to “confirm who decided to relinquish UK jurisdiction, and ensure that justice is served”.
Ms Steele has herself called for clearer guidance on who should prosecute such cases, saying that decisions to hand cases over to the US military should be formally recorded and that survivors’ views should be sought beforehand. “I think it’s really important that for the interests of justice and for the rights of victims, that we have clear framework discussion around this,” she said.
There are around 12 active US air force bases across the UK, and cases like Wulfson’s have fuelled calls for greater scrutiny of how British police forces handle incidents involving visiting forces — especially when the victim is a British citizen. The Government has said it will examine the details of the case, but Ms Steele’s experience has already exposed the gap between what the law allows and what happens in practice.
