Reforming the Service Justice System’s Approach to Sexual Offences

Independent reviews, parliamentary scrutiny and survivor testimony have consistently highlighted serious shortcomings in the Service Justice System, particularly in its handling of rape and sexual assault. As the government considers further reform through the Armed Forces Bill 2026, it is timely to examine whether the current system is capable of delivering justice for survivors. We have long lobbied for reform in this area because we see firsthand, through our clients, how the current system deters reporting, undermines confidence and fails survivors.

Sexual offences involving service personnel are ordinarily reported to the Service Police, who operate within the military structure. Investigations are conducted by the Service Police and referred to the Service Prosecuting Authority, which determines whether charges should be brought and whether proceedings should be brought before a court martial. Even where alleged offending takes place in the UK, and in circumstances where the civilian criminal courts could have jurisdiction, cases predominantly remain within the Service Justice System.

Survivors of sexual offences consistently report low confidence in the current system. There is often an initial hurdle in survivors reporting to the military police because they fear the repercussions and implications for their own careers. The lack of an independent and impartial justice system is an inherent flaw throughout the whole process; from the way cases are reported through to the way trials are conducted. Survivors frequently report concerns about confidentiality, impartiality and the potential impact on their future within the armed forces, all of which undermine confidence at the earliest stage and contribute to under reporting.

Under the court martial system, cases are tried before a board of military personnel who act as the jury, in stark contrast to the Civilian Justice System where a jury will be selected entirely at random from the general population. Whilst military personnel chosen for the board are selected randomly across the services, this does not mean that these individuals are not influenced in their decision making by upcoming promotional boards or future posting requests. Even the perception of such influence is sufficient to undermine confidence in the fairness of proceedings. There is also a severe prejudice caused to survivors who are being required to recount traumatic details in an intimidating environment and surrounded by peers and superiors.

Even getting to court martial stage can be a fraught process. Investigations can be lengthy and drawn out, and evidence gathering can fall short of the standards we expect in the civilian system. When prosecuting decisions are made, there is a tendency to pursue lesser charges which won’t result in the same level of sentencing as more serious offences. Survivors are left feeling that there has been a deliberate attempt to downplay the severity and to overlook the devasting consequences, in favour of a more lenient approach to offenders. A lack of faith in the system can result in survivors understandably being reluctant or unwilling to see the process through. 

It is perhaps not surprising given all of these flaws that conviction rates are so low.  It has long been established that service personnel accused of rape and sexual assault are far less likely to be found guilty in a military court martial compared to the civilian criminal courts. Fewer than a quarter (23%) of the 93 rape cases heard in court martials between January 2018 and April 2024 resulted in a guilty verdict. This compares to an average 70% conviction rate for rape cases heard in civilian courts. These stark disparities reflect a combination of weaker investigations, cautious charging decisions and decision making by boards that lack the structural independence of civilian juries.

Survivors of sexual offences are being denied justice in the criminal system, but also when it comes to claiming compensation, because a civil claim will be reliant on either a conviction or a sufficient amount of evidence required to reach the lower threshold of proof which applies in civil proceedings. Failures at the investigative and prosecutorial stages therefore have far reaching consequences beyond the criminal process itself.

The government should be prioritising reform of the Service Justice System given the overwhelming number of women having reported incidents of sexual assault and harassment during service, the lack of justice and transparency inherent in the current system, and fundamentally because our military should be a safe place for women, and indeed all service personnel, who are performing a vital public service. 

The Armed Forces Bill 2026, which had its second reading in the House of Commons on 26^th January, includes a proposal for guidance to allow victims to express a preference on which jurisdiction the offence should be tried in. This falls short of the recommendations made by the Lyons Review in 2018 which called for criminal offences including rape to automatically be investigated and prosecuted under the Civilian Justice System. The review identified a lack of independence and structural safeguards as fundamental barriers to justice within the military system.

Subsequent reviews, including the Wigston Review in 2019 and the Atheron Review in 2021, have repeated the same recommendations, highlighting the inadequacies in the way the military has responded to complaints of harassment and assault. The consistency of these findings over time underscores the inadequacy of piecemeal reform.

I am cautiously optimistic based on the current proposals that progress can be made but this relies on clear guidelines and implementation on a consistent basis across all branches of the military. I welcome all of the measures being proposed to support survivors, which include a Statutory Code of Practice and better provision for vulnerable victims. 

However, the proposed reforms don’t go far enough. Serious sexual offences should be investigated through the Civilian Justice System. Civilian jurisdiction offers independence, specialist investigators and prosecutors, and established frameworks for supporting survivors of sexual violence.  Where there is uncertainty regarding jurisdiction, I fear that the status quo will remain and that survivors won’t be given the opportunity to make an informed decision and won’t have the access to justice they deserve.