US Military Court Martial Raises Questions About Jurisdiction in Sexual Assault Case

A British academic's allegations against a US fighter pilot have shed light on the intricate legal landscape when crimes involve foreign military personnel on British soil.

In the early hours of 2, Sarah Steele, a British academic, found herself in a distressing situation. She awoke in a bathtub, disoriented and in pain, in the apartment of an American fighter pilot she had met just the night before.

This encounter would lead to a complex legal battle that highlighted the nuances of jurisdiction when crimes involve foreign military personnel on British soil.

The pilot, Capt Jacob Wulfson, was accused of drugging and assaulting Steele in his apartment in the east of England.

However, his case was tried at a court martial on a US airbase, despite the alleged crime occurring off duty and in an English city. This decision raised significant questions about jurisdiction and the fairness of military legal proceedings.

The Unusual Legal Proceedings

The court martial took place at RAF Lakenheath, the largest US base in Britain, in April this year. The proceedings followed US military law, and the offence was charged as sexual assault and “aggravated sexual contact,” rather than rape as it would have been categorized in the English criminal justice system.

The judge, an air force colonel, presided over a room filled with people in navy-blue uniforms. The jury consisted of eight air force officers, all stationed on the same base as Wulfson and all men. The panel’s president was the chief of the squadron that maintains the jets flown by Wulfson, and another panel member had been acquitted of sexual offences at a previous court martial.

The Defense’s Strategy

Wulfson’s defence team sought to undermine Steele’s credibility, depicting her as a financially motivated, sex-obsessed “liar.” The defence attorney, Tim Bilecki, subjected Steele to theatrical and combative questioning, a style more commonly found in US courtrooms. Bilecki claimed that Steele had fabricated the allegations as part of an elaborate scheme to extract money from a UK government compensation scheme for crime victims.

The prosecution described Bilecki’s theory as absurd. By his closing submissions, Bilecki seemed less confident in this aspect of his case, admitting he did not know if Steele was motivated by money. Another line of attack was that Steele abused prescription drugs, suggesting she had taken the etizolam herself.

The Verdict and Its Implications

The jury found Wulfson guilty of strangling Steele but not guilty of penetrating her without her consent. Under US military law, Wulfson could choose between the judge or jury to decide his punishment. He opted for the jury, which imposed a six-month sentence, far less than the five years that would have been the maximum under English law.

Steele described the court martial as a “degrading” process that had placed her, rather than Wulfson, on trial. The case has sparked debate about the fairness of military legal proceedings and the need for the UK authorities to maintain jurisdiction in such cases.

Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and former US air force judge advocate, criticized the decision to try the case in a military court. “The British authorities should be fighting to maintain jurisdiction,” she said. “Why should they trust the American military justice system with anything related to sexual assault?”

The case of Sarah Steele and Capt Jacob Wulfson highlights the complexities and challenges of jurisdiction when crimes involve foreign military personnel on British soil. It raises important questions about the fairness of military legal proceedings and the need for greater cooperation between UK and US authorities in such cases.