‘You live for those breakthroughs’: an investigation into military tribunals on US airbases meant protecting those who spoke out

Justice Behind the Fence: How US Military Tribunals Shape the Fate of Victims in Britain

Wanderstayfinder.com – When allegations of serious crimes surface against foreign military personnel stationed on British soil, the path to justice often diverges sharply from what domestic victims would expect. Over a six-month investigation, journalists uncovered a pattern of cases where women accused US servicemen of rape and sexual assault, only to see their cases handled in opaque military tribunals held on American airbases rather than in British courts.

These proceedings, known as courts martial, have drawn scrutiny for their procedural differences and the potential impact on victims. The juries consist of fellow US military personnel, frequently drawn from the same base where the accused serves. Critics and observers note this arrangement can create perceptions of insularity, though the tribunals do operate under established military law.

A Cambridge Academic’s Ordeal

One particularly illuminating case emerged from RAF Lakenheath, Britain’s largest US airbase. Sarah Steele, an academic from Cambridge, became the focus of a court martial after being strangled and assaulted by US fighter pilot Captain Jacob Wulfson. Prosecutors brought multiple charges, including drugging, sexual assault, and aggravated sexual contact—a legal category absent from British law, where such conduct would typically be classified as rape.

The tribunal panel comprised eight US air force officers, all male. Their verdict found Wulfson guilty of strangulation but acquitted him of the sexual assault and aggravated sexual contact charges. The outcome highlighted how legal classifications can differ between jurisdictions, potentially affecting how victims perceive justice.

“The ordeal I went through was incredibly distressing and degrading. It felt intrusive and archaic.”

Steele’s description of her witness stand experience captured something many victims of sexual offenses encounter in military proceedings: more invasive questioning than might be typical in British courts. Journalists Harry Davies and Rob Evans attended the tribunal in April and observed firsthand how victims can face different standards of examination.

Beyond the Airbase Gates

RAF Lakenheath presents an almost surreal landscape for British visitors. The base contains its own shopping mall, stores stocked with American confectionery, and cafes where dollars change hands. Emergency calls are made by dialing 911 rather than the British 999. American ambulances and police vehicles patrol the perimeter, reinforcing the sense of being within a quasi-sovereign territory.

“You’d see an American ambulance or police cars and other indicators that you’re in a sort of quasi-sovereign territory behind fences,” Davies explained. “It’s not quite a parallel reality but it is a bit like walking into a part of the US.”

Perhaps most significantly, these proceedings often fly under the public radar. The only formal documentation of Steele’s case appeared as limited entries on an obscure US military website. Without journalists present, such cases might never have entered public consciousness.

Protecting Those Who Speak

For the women who came forward, the investigation team provided careful support. Some waived their anonymity entirely; others chose to remain unidentified. The journalists worked to ensure these women understood what participation would entail without feeling pressured.

“We talked them through the process and ensured that it was their decision and we weren’t pressuring them into it,” Davies said. “They can’t be fully involved in our journalistic process because it needs to be completely independent and separate from the people we’re writing about, but we can keep them informed about how certain things are going to be described.”

The team recognized that some women had already experienced retraumatization during the tribunals themselves. The witness stand in a court martial can present unique challenges, from the composition of the jury to the nature of questioning. Senior reporter Emine Sinmaz played a crucial role in locating additional cases and helping establish connections with potential sources across the country.

A Broader Picture

What began as an investigation into one case expanded into something more comprehensive. Davies and Evans suspected that Steele’s experience was not isolated but rather representative of a larger pattern. Their hunch proved correct as they uncovered multiple similar cases involving US servicemen stationed or operating in Britain.

The implications extend beyond individual cases. When victims of serious crimes are processed through military tribunals rather than civilian courts, questions arise about consistency, transparency, and whether the legal framework adequately protects those who come forward. The fact that aggravated sexual contact—a charge with no British equivalent—was among the accusations against Wulfson illustrates how legal categories can shift across borders.

For the women involved, the investigation offered validation. Their stories, once hidden behind the fences of American airbases, are now part of a public record. Whether future cases will receive similar attention remains to be seen, but the precedent has been set.