‘Degrading’: Why Did a US Fighter Pilot Avoid British Trial After Strangling a Woman in England?
Explainer: How the US Bypasses British Courts to Try Its Military Over Crimes in the UK
Degrading – When Sarah Steele, a British academic, woke to the sight of cold water pooling around her in a bathtub on the morning of 2 December 2023, she was unaware that her ordeal would become a case of international legal controversy. The incident unfolded in the residence of Capt Jacob Wulfson, a US fighter pilot she had met just the previous night. Confused and in pain, Steele’s account of the events would later be central to the charges brought against Wulfson. The case highlights a unique legal dynamic where a US service member’s actions in England are subject to a US military tribunal rather than the UK’s civilian justice system.
Wulfson’s alleged crime—drugging and strangling Steele in his off-duty apartment—would have typically been handled by England’s Crown Court, where juries of ordinary citizens would determine guilt and sentencing. However, the proceedings instead took place at a court-martial held on a US airbase, RAF Lakenheath, the largest American military installation in the UK. This decision raised questions about the jurisdictional framework that allows the US to override British legal processes in certain cases. The charges were not categorized as rape, but as sexual assault and “aggravated sexual contact,” a distinction that could impact the severity of the sentence.
Unlike the UK’s court system, where the accused is brought before a jury in a dock, Wulfson sat across from his own defense team at a table in a courtroom filled with American military personnel. The panel of eight air force officers, who served as the jury, were all stationed at the same base, ensuring their familiarity with the accused and the circumstances. This setup, while efficient for military logistics, has sparked debate over fairness and impartiality. The presiding judge, an air force colonel, carried the US flag as a symbol of the system’s authority, while the room echoed with the uniformity of the service members.
Steele’s experience underscores the implications of the US military’s legal jurisdiction in the UK. The case is part of a growing trend where UK authorities increasingly delegate the prosecution of off-duty US service members to their American counterparts. This practice, according to experts, risks undermining the accountability of military personnel in civilian courts. “The British authorities should be fighting to maintain jurisdiction,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and former US air force judge advocate. “Why should they trust the American military justice system with anything related to sexual assault?”
During the trial, which took place in April 2026, the courtroom itself became a microcosm of the system’s peculiarities. A minor misstep occurred when the NHS was misnamed, and there was confusion about travel times to Wales, adding to the surreal atmosphere. The absence of a traditional dock for the accused was notable, as Wulfson was seated at a table with his defense team, facing a jury of military officers who had no prior legal training. This arrangement gave the accused a different perspective, as he was not required to stand before a civilian jury, a role that is typically seen as a cornerstone of fair trials.
Wulfson, a decorated aviator, was known for flying F-35s, the US military’s most advanced fighter jets. His squadron, nicknamed the “Valkyries,” had trained in recent years to carry nuclear weapons, underscoring his status as an elite member of the armed forces. Despite his high profile, Wulfson did not take the stand during the court-martial. By invoking his right under the US Constitution to remain silent, he left his account to his defense team, which focused on challenging Steele’s credibility. His lawyer, an ex-army litigator from Florida, painted her as a financially motivated, sex-obsessed “liar,” employing a style of cross-examination that was more combative and theatrical than what is commonly seen in British courts.
The jury’s verdict reflected the nuances of the charges. They found Wulfson guilty of strangling Steele but acquitted him on the count of vaginal penetration without consent. If the case had been heard in England’s courts, the sentencing would have been determined by a judge following the jury’s recommendation. Under UK guidelines, non-fatal strangulation is classified as a serious offense, carrying a maximum sentence of five years. However, in the US court-martial, Wulfson had the option to choose between a judge or jury for his punishment. He opted for his fellow airmen, a decision that many argue places the burden of justice on an all-male panel with limited legal expertise.
Steele’s case has become emblematic of a broader issue: the US military’s ability to try its personnel in the UK under its own legal system, even for crimes committed off-base. This process, while efficient, raises concerns about the consistency and fairness of justice when the accused is subject to a different set of rules. The British authorities, though not directly involved in the trial, appear to have allowed the US to take the lead, a choice that may have been influenced by diplomatic considerations or administrative convenience.
The outcome of Wulfson’s trial has sparked discussions about the rights of victims and the importance of impartial juries. The fact that the jury was composed entirely of military officers, all stationed at the same base, raises questions about potential biases. In contrast, the UK’s civilian jury system includes a mix of men and women, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives that can influence verdicts. For Steele, the process felt not only degrading but also disconnected from the everyday legal system she was familiar with.
“Why should they trust the American military justice system with anything related to sexual assault?”
VanLandingham’s question remains central to the debate over the legal framework that governs such cases. As the Guardian uncovered several similar instances, the pattern suggests a systemic approach where the US military’s influence extends beyond its own borders, shaping the way justice is delivered in the UK. For victims like Steele, this means navigating a legal process that may not fully align with the principles of fairness and transparency they expect.
