How US Troops Accused of Crimes in Britain, Including Sexual Assault, Can Avoid UK Courts: What Is the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement?

When a US fighter pilot stationed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk was accused of strangling a British woman in Cambridge in late 2023, the case never reached a British court. Instead, it was handled by American military police and heard inside a US air base, before an all-male panel of eight air force officers. The pilot, Captain Jacob Wulfson, was convicted of strangulation but acquitted of sexual assault charges and received a sentence of six months at a correctional facility on the base. The victim, academic Sarah Steele, told LBC she was treated 'incredibly aggressively' by the defence team and felt 'like she was on trial.'

The case has brought renewed scrutiny to a little-known legal mechanism that has governed the conduct of American troops on British soil for more than seven decades: the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).

What Is the 1951 Nato Status of Forces Agreement?

The NATO SOFA, signed in London in 1951 and incorporated into UK law through the Visiting Forces Act 1952, sets out which country, the United States or Britain, has the authority to discipline or prosecute American military personnel for alleged offences committed on UK soil.

Under its terms, the US retains primary jurisdiction when an offence is committed while a service member is on duty, or when it involves another member of the US armed forces, their property, or a dependant such as a spouse or child. In all other circumstances, British authorities technically hold the first option to prosecute.

There is, however, a significant wrinkle. The agreement permits the US to formally request that British police or prosecutors hand a case over. Crucially, the British side is required to give 'sympathetic' consideration to such requests, though it retains the right to refuse. In practice, the US appears to be claiming a far wider jurisdiction than the agreement strictly provides, and British authorities are frequently allowing it.

How Does It Work in Practice?

There are more than 12,000 US personnel stationed across at least 15 bases and facilities in Britain; except for Lossiemouth in Scotland, all are in England.

A US air force expert in the military justice system told The Guardian that the UK routinely defers to American courts. 'Oftentimes the UK will turn it back over to the US military and allow us to prosecute it,' he said. He added that the Pentagon regards this arrangement as essential to maintaining discipline. 'It's very important to our commanders to be able to have consistent, standardised punishments and systems for our troops,' he said. 'It is a huge deal.'

Courts martial are held on military premises behind secured perimeters, meaning the public cannot attend as they could at a British criminal hearing. Judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers are all legally trained military personnel. The jury is drawn from serving members of the armed forces. The proceedings are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which covers not only military-specific offences but also crimes including sexual violence.

A US Air Force spokesperson said its proceedings 'are fair, transparent and thorough.'

When Does the UK Push Back?

British authorities do not publish statistics on how often they refuse American requests to take over cases. There are, however, recorded instances of UK law enforcement insisting on its own jurisdiction.

In one such case, an American mechanic named Mikayla Hayes was driving from RAF Lakenheath to her home in Downham Market, Norfolk, in August 2022 when she struck and killed a British motorcyclist, Matthew Day, aged 33. The US military sought to take control of the investigation and served a formal certificate asserting jurisdiction. The Crown Prosecution Service successfully challenged that certificate in court, and Hayes was ultimately tried at Norwich Crown Court, where she was acquitted of causing death by careless driving.

Government Reaction

The Wulfson case prompted immediate reactions from ministers. Justice Minister Jake Richards told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'It's a really serious case... I'm going to take it away back to the Ministry of Justice and make sure that we are looking into the details of this later.' He added: '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.'

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said the government found it 'very concerning that a case like this never reached the CPS, but was investigated by US airbase police and heard in front of an all-male panel of air force officers.' Shadow justice secretary Nick Timothy wrote to Justice Secretary David Lammy calling for an 'urgent review' of what happened and asking him to 'confirm who decided to relinquish UK jurisdiction.'

Steele herself called for a formal review of the framework. '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.

A Framework Under Pressure

The Wulfson case is not an isolated one. The broader question of whether military courts adequately handle serious crimes has been debated in Parliament for years. The Armed Forces Bill 2026, currently before the House of Commons, includes provisions allowing victims to express a preference on whether their case is heard in a civilian or military court, an acknowledgement that the existing framework has long been considered insufficient.

Separately, University College London research from 2023 found that conviction rates for rape cases at court martial have hovered at around 20 per cent since 2015, compared with a 75 per cent conviction rate in Crown Court.

As political pressure mounts on ministers to act, Steele's call for a formal review puts the question of whether a 75-year-old agreement adequately protects victims on British soil squarely before the government.