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.