US pilot crime under UK jurisdiction but prosecuted by USAF?

[ChevronB19]

He committed a crime on UK land, not the airbase, and therefore under UK jurisdiction, but the prosecution was handed over to the USAF?

There is something deeply wrong with this.

He committed a crime on UK land, not the airbase, and therefore under U.K. jurisdiction?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive...

[98elise]

It depends on the crime, however I'm surprised rape wasn't dealt with by the UK courts.

For minor crimes it will be dealt with quicker by the services and he punishment will be harder, plus it doesn't waste civilian courts time.

Edited by 98elise on Thursday 25th June 11:24

[Stu R]

The process is pretty clear - NATO SOFA sets the framework, we implement it via the Visiting Forces Act, but the CPS can insist on UK prosecution or waive jurisdiction to USAF. Invariably, the USAF will prefer it to be handled by them.

Something as serious as an [alleged] rape being waived is surprising at first glance, but if Cambridge plod previously deferred to USAF investigators, it would seem to make sense that CPS would too I suppose, be it out of habit or on the basis of evidence / disclosures etc.

[BikeBikeBIke]

I don't wanna pay for a trial and imprisonment of this guy. Let America deal with him.

[ChevronB19]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I don't wanna pay for a trial and imprisonment of this guy. Let America deal with him.

But the crime was committed (and he was found guilty of a crime) in Cambridge, not on an airbase, and his sentence was decided upon by a jury of other airmen, not by a judge.

I wouldn’t be happy (and clearly am not happy), nor would I be if a foreign citizen from any other country was prosecuted and sentenced under their own countries laws for a crime committed in this country. Commit a crime here, suffer our consequences (which may or may not be more/less significant than other countries).

It just sounds wrong.

[KAgantua]

Lets be honest the us military does what it wants anyway see the lad on the motorbike

[valiant]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I don't wanna pay for a trial and imprisonment of this guy. Let America deal with him.

I see where you’re coming from but can we say the justice was truly served here?

He got off light compared to what a U.K. court would impose and the victim must feel short changed by the sentence.

[ATG]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I don't wanna pay for a trial and imprisonment of this guy. Let America deal with him.

What if they do a st job of it?

[Stu R]

valiant said:

I see where you re coming from but can we say the justice was truly served here?

He got off light compared to what a U.K. court would impose and the victim must feel short changed by the sentence.

The rape charge didn't stick, it's impossible to say whether a UK court would have convicted because we have no idea of the evidence and similarly it's hard to gauge what sentence they would have imposed if they had - but let's not pretend they haven't got form for some criticism-worthy light sentencing of late.
I do think it's a fair assumption the CPS may have charged something stronger after the full code test, but again, I have no idea what evidence they were all working with so it's all conjecture. Rape cases are incredibly difficult to get to trial though.

For reference what he was actually convicted of would earn him anywhere from a community order to a maximum 5 years if it was tried in a UK court and got the same outcome.

I'd definitely understand the victim feeling short changed, but she very well could have been left wishing the USAF had handled the case had the CPS ran with it - both avenues have the ability to end up with horribly light sentences.

[BikeBikeBIke]

ATG said:

BikeBikeBIke said:

I don't wanna pay for a trial and imprisonment of this guy. Let America deal with him.

What if they do a st job of it?

I must confess I was assuming an eye watering sentence in a US goal and that clearly didn't happen. It hadn't occured to me that a US sentence would be more lenient.

Mind you, would a UK court have convicted any better? Presumably it would be her word against his that it wasn't consensual. Maybe he'd have got off all together i a UK court. The strangulation is easier to prove than the rape and presumably you can't consent to being strangled so impossible to get away with if there's bruising.

But yeah, I'd question if a UK court would have got a rape conviction but clearly I'd rather have the right result at my expense than a wildly wrong result at someone else's.

[ChevronB19]

BikeBikeBIke said:

I'd rather have the right result at my expense than a wildly wrong result at someone else's.

Ditto.

[JagLover]

Stu R said:

The rape charge didn't stick, it's impossible to say whether a UK court would have convicted because we have no idea of the evidence and similarly it's hard to gauge what sentence they would have imposed if they had - but let's not pretend they haven't got form for some criticism-worthy light sentencing of late.

Regarding the rape charge I think, based on the article, it was sex without a condom when she had wanted them to be used.

I suspect a UK court may well have sentenced him to a similar sentence, or even less, for strangulation without consent, but others may know more.

[Murph7355]

The Guardian doesn't help itself with a report trying to show bias in proceedings, by showing bias in its reporting. Really not a good article and I doubt helpful to anyone.

[ChevronB19]

Murph7355 said:

The Guardian doesn't help itself with a report trying to show bias in proceedings, by showing bias in its reporting. Really not a good article and I doubt helpful to anyone.

You’re missing the point here mate. US citizen commits crime in UK jurisdiction, subjected to USAF trial, sentenced decided by jury (literally of his peers). The bias is clear, and it’s not on the side of the Guardian, it’s on the side of USAF.

[JagLover]

Off topic slightly but, while many issues in the media to do with the internet strike me as moral panic, I think there may be a genuine issue with porn with BDSM elements.

It seems to have become quite common for sex to involve choking with many, with obvious issues if one party isn't into it, to say nothing of the risks to health. What was wrong with pretty girls and non-violent encounters?

[ChevronB19]

JagLover said:

Off topic slightly but, while many issues in the media to do with the internet strike me as moral panic, I think there may be a genuine issue with porn with BDSM elements.

It seems to have become quite common for sex to involve choking with many, with obvious issues if one party isn't into it, to say nothing of the risks to health. What was wrong with pretty girls and non-violent encounters?

From the trial (and their mutual messages)

Before arriving, she texted him with what she described as “a few ground rules”. It read: “No means no when said. No hands on my neck. Ever. Condoms please.” She acknowledged that her message was “blunt”. Wulfson replied: “Yes, that’s fair.”

Note the ‘no hands on my neck - ever’

[Murph7355]

ChevronB19 said:

You re missing the point here mate. US citizen commits crime in UK jurisdiction, subjected to USAF trial, sentenced decided by jury (literally of his peers). The bias is clear, and it s not on the side of the Guardian, it s on the side of USAF.

As posted above, and swerved in the Guardian article using the word "technically", it is "allowable" for people to be tried by the USAF even if the crime is committed outside of the base.

If there's an issue with that, it is at the door of the govt to be far more prescriptive/strict. Though we know with the Sacoolas case that being more "strict" is not likely to be easy to police. Unfortunately that sits in the Das Politik camp. Not saying I think it's right...

Elsewhere in the article the Guardian note that the guy was sentenced to 6mths and then notes the maximum here is 5yrs. Correct...but also as noted above,the minimum here is community service and that's IF the person was found guilty. Which is not a given.

Yes, the process used by the USAF is dodgy as fk IMO. But the Guardian is being selective with what it is reporting (the suggestion being for the casual observer that of course the guy would have received 5yrs had he been tried in a UK court. Which is far from certain).

I feel sorry for the woman and what happened to her. If I were in charge the guy would have been tried here and served time here (subject to the evidence and assuming he wasn't whisked off in the dead of night to the US). But there's zero certainty he would have received more of a sentence had things been different.

(PS I think many sentences in this country, especially for people causing harm to others, are way too light)

[JagLover]

ChevronB19 said:

From the trial (and their mutual messages)

Before arriving, she texted him with what she described as a few ground rules . It read: No means no when said. No hands on my neck. Ever. Condoms please. She acknowledged that her message was blunt . Wulfson replied: Yes, that s fair.

Note the no hands on my neck - ever

Hence my comment on it seeming to become common to the extent that women are having to set such ground rules. The fact he seemed to ignore this was why he got a six month sentence.

[ChevronB19]

Murph7355 said:

As posted above, and swerved in the Guardian article using the word "technically", it is "allowable" for people to be tried by the USAF even if the crime is committed outside of the base.

If there's an issue with that, it is at the door of the govt to be far more prescriptive/strict. Though we know with the Sacoolas case that being more "strict" is not likely to be easy to police. Unfortunately that sits in the Das Politik camp. Not saying I think it's right...

Elsewhere in the article the Guardian note that the guy was sentenced to 6mths and then notes the maximum here is 5yrs. Correct...but also as noted above,the minimum here is community service and that's IF the person was found guilty. Which is not a given.

Yes, the process used by the USAF is dodgy as fk IMO. But the Guardian is being selective with what it is reporting (the suggestion being for the casual observer that of course the guy would have received 5yrs had he been tried in a UK court. Which is far from certain).

I feel sorry for the woman and what happened to her. If I were in charge the guy would have been tried here and served time here (subject to the evidence and assuming he wasn't whisked off in the dead of night to the US). But there's zero certainty he would have received more of a sentence had things been different.

(PS I think many sentences in this country, especially for people causing harm to others, are way too light)

Point taken, and well delivered.

[Earthdweller]

From that article if seems the victim reported the offence directly to the US authorities and not the UK police

The US military police started the investigation and informed Cambs Police who agreed for them to continue to lead on it

I'd make a presumption that if she'd reported the matter direct to Cambs Police then they would have taken the lead and it would have been dealt with in the uk courts