- Sexual Offenses and Harassment in the Armed Forces
- Investigating Allegations of Sexual Assualt
- Role of Commanding Officer and Director of Service Prosecutions in Serious Cases
- Statistics on the Investigation of Rape and Sexual Assualt in the Armed Forces
- Examples of Courts-Martial
- Criticism of the System
English soldiers have been regulated by a separate justice system from civilians for centuries. Since 1521 a military courts-martial system has operated, and in 1666 the office of Judge Advocate General (JAG) was created to supervise these courts-martial. Discipline and criminal conduct of members of the armed forces were governed by what were known as the Service Discipline Acts, with separate Acts applying to each branch of the armed forces. Each of these Acts provided for its own system of discipline for its members, including for criminal offenses. Despite the separate Acts, the general structure of each of the systems was similar.
In 2006, the Armed Forces Act established the Court Martial as a permanent, standing court effective October 31, 2009. Prior to the 2006 Act, the Royal Navy courts-martial system was run separately from the JAG through the office of the Judge Advocate of the Fleet (JAF), which was established in 1661. The 2006 Act merged these two offices and established a single system of armed services law. One reason for the merger was the increase in joint operations by the different branches of the armed forces and the sentiment that “having them subject to different disciplinary systems cause[d] unnecessary complications.”
II. The Court Martial
The Court Martial has jurisdiction to hear cases on “service offences,” which include both civilian criminal law offenses committed by members of the armed forces and military disciplinary offenses. The Court Martial is not identical to the Crown Court, which comprises the criminal courts of England and Wales, but they are similar in many respects. For example, Rule 26 of the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 provides that the Court Martial proceedings should closely resemble those of the Crown Court in cases where the Court Martial hears an issue that is not specifically provided for by the Rules. The Judge Advocate General’s Guidance on Sentencing in the Court Martial notes that
[t]he differences between the Service and civilian systems of justice exist only to reinforce and support the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces, and are necessary because of the link between the maintenance of discipline and the administration of justice and the need to be able to hold trials anywhere in the world.
III. Judge Advocate General
The Judge Advocate General is appointed by the Queen by Letters Patent upon the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor. The Judge Advocate General is an independent member of the judiciary and a civilian. However, having a military background does not prohibit a person from being appointed to this role. In 2003 the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the presence of a civilian judge in a Court Martial
with legal qualifications, judicial independence, and a pivotal role in conducting the proceedings, constitutes not only an important safeguard but one of the most significant guarantees of the independence of the Court Martial proceedings. This ruling explains and reinforces the rationale that proceedings in the Court Martial should be and are presided over by the Judge Advocate.
The Judge Advocate General has a Vice-Judge Advocate General and seven Assistant Judge Advocates General, with the ability to call upon ten additional Deputy Judge Advocates. All of these judges are civilians that are appointed from among experienced lawyers. There are certain instances where a High Court judge can preside in the Court Martial as a Judge Advocate; however, this is reserved for serious or unprecedented cases.
The Court Martial has the same sentencing powers in relation to imprisonment as a Crown Court, and may impose sentences that include life imprisonment where appropriate and provided for in the law. Most of the sentencing powers in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are also available in the Court Martial.
Sentencing is not determined by the Judge Advocate alone; instead the Judge Advocate sits with a board of three to five lay service members in the Court Martial, with the Judge Advocate presiding over the sentencing deliberations. A simple majority is required to pass a sentence, and the judge has the casting vote. When determining sentences,
. . . the Court Martial must take into account what is in the best interests of the Service, because the whole Services justice system is designed to underpin the operational effectiveness of the Armed Forces. This often makes the sentencing exercise different from that in the civilian courts. The close-knit structure of the Armed Forces means that sentences of the Court Martial are more widely disseminated than sentences in civilian courts, and thus deterrence is a more important factor in Court Martial sentencing. The specialist judges who preside over trials in the Court Martial understand and apply this principle well, which has been acknowledged by the Court of Appeal. Scott Baker LJ said:
It is, in our judgment, extremely important that due deference should be given by the courts to decisions of the military authorities in sentence in cases of this kind (in this case theft and criminal damage in barracks). They, and they alone, are best placed to appreciate the significance of an offence such as this in relation to questions of morale and maintenance of appropriate behaviour in their units.
V. Summary Hearings by Commanding Officers
While the UK has a robust system for the hearing of serious criminal and disciplinary matters by the Court Martial, it maintains a system that allows a Commanding Officer to address both minor criminal and disciplinary matters from within the chain of command. Specified criminal offenses and disciplinary issues may be dealt with summarily by the accused’s Commanding Officer and, according to the Judiciary of England and Wales, this remains the method through which the majority of minor and disciplinary offenses by members of the armed forces are handled. For these offenses the Commanding Officer retains the majority of rights to hear, amend charges relating to, determine punishment for, or dismiss such cases. The explanatory notes to the Armed Forces Act 2006 emphasize the importance of the Commanding Officer’s role in maintaining discipline within the Forces:
A commanding officer (CO) has a central role in maintaining discipline and every member of the armed forces has a CO for disciplinary purposes. Accordingly COs in all the services have defined disciplinary powers to deal with certain disciplinary and criminal conduct offences.
The Commanding Officer also has a duty to either report service offenses to the service police or conduct an “appropriate investigation” into them. The explanatory notes to the 2006 Act state that in many instances an investigation other than by the service police will be appropriate, as many of the service offenses include “less serious disciplinary offences.”
The Commanding Officer has authority to impose up to twenty-eight days of detention, extendable to up to ninety days with approval from a higher-ranking authority. The accused may request that his or her case be heard before the Court Martial and may appeal the matter to the Summary Appeal Court after the conclusion of the hearing before the Commanding Officer.
While the Commanding Officer retains the authority to discipline his or her service members, the decision regarding whether or not to bring an accused before the Court Martial for serious criminal and disciplinary offenses lies with the prosecuting authority, the Director of Service Prosecutions (DSP). The DSP is independent of the chain of command and is an experienced lawyer appointed by the Queen. The DSP may be a civilian lawyer.
VI. Human Rights Obligations
The UK has certain obligations that it must meet under the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into its national law. One obligation under the Human Rights Act is to provide everyone with the right to a fair trial. The summary procedure through the Commanding Officer does not necessarily comply with the right to a fair trial, as the accused does not have the right to legal representation. The Ministry of Defence maintains that the system, when taken as a whole, complies with the Human Rights Act, as the accused does have a right of appeal and can also request that the case be heard before the Court Martial.
VII. Complaints Procedure Within the Armed Forces
The Armed Forces Act 2006 introduced the current complaints system for members of the Armed Forces. The system aims to provide a “fair, effective and efficient method for obtaining redress for grievances.” The Armed Forces Act was the largest overhaul of military justice legislation in fifty years, and many of the processes put forth by the legislation were a result of calls for greater independence of the complaints system after scandals caused by bullying, harassment and other behavior led to the deaths of four soldiers at the Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut.
The Act provides all individuals subject to service law the right to make a complaint if they believe they have been wronged in any matter relating to their service. The Service complaint may be raised in two ways— either directly to the individual’s chain of command, or by notifying the Service Complaints Commissioner of the issues. The Commissioner is not provided with authority under the Armed Forces Act to investigate complaints; instead the Commissioner may refer the matter to the complainant’s chain of command. The Service Complaints Commissioner serves two roles:
. . . to provide an alternative point of contact for Service personnel, or someone acting on their behalf, such as a family member, a friend or MP, who for whatever reason does not have the confidence, or is not able, to raise allegations of bullying, harassment, discrimination or other improper behaviour directly with the chain of command; and to provide independent assurance on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the Service complaints system to Ministers, the Services and Parliament by way of an annual report.
If the complaint involves allegations of rape or sexual assault, it is put into the military justice system, and the service investigation is placed on hold. The number of complaints reported by the Commissioner that involves allegations of rape or assault is low, and there are many concerns that this figure is due not to the low instance of these crimes but to underreporting. The Commissioner notes that
[a] number of complainants—particularly female complainants—come to me with issues that are not actually about rape or sexual assaults, but they raise rape and sexual assaults as a matter in the past and a reason for not trusting the chain of command.
VIII. Sexual Offenses and Harassment in the Armed Forces
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies to members of the armed forces in accordance with section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. The recently established Service Prosecution Authority (SPA) follows a Code almost identical to that of its civilian counterparts in determining whether a case should be prosecuted, considering the strength of the evidence provided, combined with the public and service interest in prosecuting the case. The Code for Service Prosecutors takes into consideration the “service interest” in prosecuting cases, but this “is simply another way of stating the public interest in prosecuting such offences.”
Sexual harassment is defined by the Ministry of Defence in the MOD Bullying and Harassment Complaints Procedures as
- unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct
- of a sexual nature which
- has the purpose or effect of
- violating the recipient’s dignity
- or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive
environment for the recipient.
6. Sexual harassment must involve conduct of a sexual nature, but it need not be on account of the recipient’s gender or take place between members of the opposite sex. Examples of such conduct may include: inappropriate or over-familiar touching (groping, fondling, pinching, patting etc); pestering someone for a date, asking about their sex life or commenting on their anatomy; making suggestive remarks or obscene gestures; leering or wolf-whistling; displaying nude pin-ups; downloading, watching or reading pornographic images, films or magazines in a communal area; and, circulating e-mails, mobile telephone texts or multimedia messages containing ‘dirty’ jokes or other sexual content or images.
7. To amount to harassment, or sexual harassment, the conduct complained of must have the purpose or effect of violating the recipient’s dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. It makes no difference whether the conduct was intended to have either of these effects. The fact that it was intended as a joke, or that no offence was meant, is no excuse. Where the conduct was unintentional, the test is whether in all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of the Complainant, the conduct could reasonably be considered as having either of the specified effects.
A survey in 2006 found that almost all service women who responded had been in a situation that involved sexualized behaviors, with almost seventy percent responding that they had encountered sexual behavior directed at them that was unwelcome. The length of service was also found to play a role; the longer survey respondents had served, the more likely they were to perceive that there was a problem with sexual harassment in the military. Thirteen percent reported that they had been sexually assaulted, but only five percent of these made a formal written complaint. Reasons given for not filing a formal complaint included wanting to handle the situation by themselves, concern over being labeled a troublemaker, concern that the complaint would have a negative impact on their career, and concern that nothing would be done about it. For those who did make a formal complaint, almost half stated it took too long to resolve the issue, claimed they were not properly informed about the procedure, and were not satisfied with how the outcome was explained. Over half “stated that there had been negative consequences as a result of filing a complaint, with 64 per cent considering leaving the service.”
Despite these findings, the survey discovered that some respondents did not welcome a zero tolerance policy and feared that “too draconian an approach would lead to political correctness and people treading too carefully.”
IX. Investigating Allegations of Sexual Assault
The Royal Military Police with its Royal Navy and Royal Air Force counterparts, known collectively as the Service Police, investigate criminal offenses, including allegations of sexual assault within the military. The Service Police’s role is investigative, and they operate independently of the chain of command and the Ministry of Defence.
The Service Police are all trained in how to handle alleged sexual offenses until experienced investigators take control of the investigation. Serious sexual offenses are handled by the Service Police’s Special Investigation Branch. Personnel receive ongoing professional development training by external speakers and are frequently trained alongside civilian police officers. The Service Police also have access to civilian facilities, including Sexual Assault Referral Centers, and in many places overseas, the Service Police may use the Joint Response Team, a specialist team that investigates offenses involving children and other vulnerable victims and witnesses.
During investigations into sexual offenses, the investigator appointed to the case maintains contact with the victim during both the investigation and any judicial proceedings that may arise. The investigator not only informs the victim of any legal progress with the case, but also ensures that the victim receives information on help available, such as victim support. Victims who are members of the armed forces are under no obligation to inform their chain of command about their case. However, if they provide consent for the details of their case to be disclosed to their chain of command or inform their chain of command themselves, they are provided further support in accordance with the Code of Practice on services to be provided to victims of crime. They also then receive access to other professionals within the armed forces, such as the Medical Officer and Unit Welfare Officers.
There are some jurisdictional elements that also come into play when allegations of criminal offenses arise within the military. When offenses occur in the United Kingdom, generally the civilian police force have primary jurisdiction. In cases where both the suspect and victim are members of the armed forces, the Service Police may take the lead in any investigation, although in more serious offenses the civilian police are more likely to retain jurisdiction. In cases that involve a civilian suspect, the civilian police always retain jurisdiction in the UK. At an overseas location, if both the suspect and victim are members of the UK armed forces, the Service Police generally conduct the investigation, even in instances where a Status of Forces Agreement provides for the local police force to retain jurisdiction.
Several grassroots training methods are in place as a result of the recommendations of the 2006 report Quantitative and Qualitative Research into Sexual Harassment in the Armed Forces. These include raising awareness that sexual harassment is unacceptable, reviewing equality and diversity training, introducing a comprehensive complaints procedure, implementing a tracking system for individuals whose behavior falls below that expected, and issuing guidance that encourages the use of administrative action in harassment cases.
X. Role of Commanding Officer and Director of Service Prosecutions in Serious Cases
The Commanding Officer is under a duty to inform the Service Police of any allegations of actions or circumstances in which he or she believes a “serious offence” (those listed in Schedule 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2006) has been committed. The explanatory notes to the 2006 Act do not provide any examples of the types of offenses that should be referred, but instead state “the service offences listed in that schedule are all inherently serious, in that it is difficult to envisage a trivial example of any of them.” Despite the comprehensive list of offenses contained in Schedule 2, which specifically includes the offenses of rape and assault by penetration, a number of sexual offenses are excluded from the definition of serious offense, including the sexual offenses of sexual assault, exposure, and voyeurism.
In cases where the service police conduct an investigation and determine there is enough evidence to charge the suspect with a Schedule 2 offense, the case must be referred to the DSP, and the Commanding Officer must be informed of the referral. For these serious offenses, the authority of the Commanding Officer is effectively removed, and the decision whether or not charges should be brought rests with the DSP. When a case has been referred to the DSP, the Director has a number of options at his or her disposal, including directing the Commanding Officer to bring charges or sending the case to the Court Martial. In all cases that are headed for a trial before the Court Martial, the DSP is the one who makes the determination whether to prosecute and the charges that should be brought.
When determining whether to prosecute a case, the DSP reviews the evidence and applies the Code for Crown Prosecutors to determine whether to direct trial before the Court Martial and the charges that should be brought. The Code for Crown Prosecutors provides extensive guidance and stipulates that cases should only proceed if there is “sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and a prosecution is in the public (including service) interest.”
In cases of rape, only the DSP may authorize the prosecution of such case and only prosecutors who are specially trained may be involved in these types of cases. If a specially trained prosecutor is not available within the service justice system, the DSP can instruct a “specialist advocate approved to conduct such cases within the civilian system.” For cases that occur in the UK, there is a protocol between the DSP and the Director of Public Prosecutions that govern which justice system should hear the case. The civilian system generally has primary jurisdiction, unless a case involves both a suspect and victim who are subject to service law. 
An independent review of the SPA found that, aside from some minor issues, the prosecution system was operating successfully.
XI. Statistics on the Investigation of Rape and Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces
The method in which sexual assault cases may be investigated by both local and Service Police has made is difficult to obtain statistics on how many allegations of sexual assault are made that involve a member of the armed forces. In cases where the civilian police investigate crimes, there is a Notifiable Occupation Scheme that allows civilian police to inform the Service Police of investigations that involve a suspect who is a serving member of the military; however, this is dependent upon the suspect informing the police of his status, and there is no requirement for the civilian police to disclose any information about the victim. Even in cases where the Service Police conducted the investigation, the database where these records are held is currently not set up to produce statistical data. A Crime Statistics and Analysis Cell is being set up that aims to, among other things, produce statistical data relating to Service Police investigations. The following statistics are compiled from data extrapolated from the investigations of the Service Police and published in Parliamentary debates:
Sexual Assault Female
Sexual Assault Male
Source:April 25, 2013, Parl. Deb. H.C. (6th ser.) 1250W, http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130425/text/130425w0009.htm.
For sexual assault cases represented in the above table, there were 139 cases with 146 allegations. The Service Police handled 135 of these cases, with the following outcomes:
14 cases were not investigated because the complaint was not pursued;
15 cases were investigated but did not result in a person being referred to a prosecuting authority under the Armed Forces Act 2006;
34 cases resulted in persons being referred to a prosecuting authority under the Armed Forces Act 2006 but did not result in court martial or other disciplinary proceedings;
24 cases which resulted in a court martial or other disciplinary proceedings resulted in a conviction;
10 cases resulted in a court martial or other disciplinary proceedings which did not result in a conviction;
15 cases resulted in a court martial or other disciplinary proceedings which resulted in a conviction for a lesser offence;
23 cases are ongoing.
XII. Examples of Courts-Martial
Despite the Judge Advocate’s independence from the chain of command, there have been reported cases of failure, with blame being attributed to a closing of ranks within the military by one Judge Advocate, which resulted in insufficient evidence for the successful prosecution of a case. One of the most high-profile cases is that of Baha Mousa, a civilian Iraqi who died in a detention center operated by British troops after he was detained in Iraq in 2003. The postmortem revealed that Mousa suffered ninety-three injuries while in the custody of British soldiers and that his injuries were consistent with systematic beating over a period of time. Despite a £20 million (approximately US$35 million) investigation into the circumstances of Mousa’s death and a court-martial, the exact circumstances of his death have never emerged. The court-martial did result in the conviction of one member of the armed forces, who admitted he treated the prisoners in the case inhumanely. He was dismissed from the army and jailed for a year. All others investigated in the case were cleared because of a lack of evidence.
XIII. Criticisms of the System
As noted above, allegations of sexual assault, voyeurism, and exposure are not considered serious offenses that are subject to strict reporting requirements, a fact which the Service Complaints Commissioner views as failing the members of the armed forces. The Commissioner stated that
… allegations involving acts of violence present specific problems. Under the Armed Forces Act 2006, sexual assaults short of rape or penetration do not have to be reported to the Service police and thus to the Service Prosecuting Authority.
So any incident that can be seen as a joke (e.g. exposure to or indecent touching of female soldiers) or Horse play (e.g. threats involving vacuum cleaners or “posed” sexual assaults for Facebook—which are talked about as jokes) may not get picked up.
The Commissioner considers that the lack of action taken over such incidents undermines confidence in the chain of command and the Service Police, and considers as essential a change in the law to require all sexual assaults (including exposure and voyeurism, and the misuse of social media) to be reported to the police and Service Prosecuting Authority.
We are concerned that the number of sexual harassment and other sexual offences allegations made to the Commissioner remains low. Other evidence, such as the 2006 Equal Opportunities Commission and MoD Survey into sexual harassment in the Armed Forces, suggested that the incidence of such offences was a lot higher than the number of complaints would indicate … We note that the MoD is attempting to produce the most accurate information possible but it is inappropriate for them to fail to provide accurate figures in answers to Parliamentary Questions. Without accurate figures, the MoD is unaware of how severe a problem it is dealing with in relation to sexual offences within the Armed Forces or what measures it is required to take to rectify the offences committed. We recommend that the MoD instigate new research into the level of sexual offences in the Armed Forces and the actions required to tackle it and to encourage possible victims to report such allegations whether to the Commissioner, the Royal Military Police or the chain of command.
The Complaints Commissioner has been highly critical of the armed forces complaints system, with the headline of the press release for her annual report stating, “After 5 years the Armed Forces complaints system is still inefficient and undermines confidence in the chain of command.” The Commissioner’s 2012 annual report notes, “I am still unable to say that the Service complaints system is working efficiently, effectively or fairly. This is unacceptable.” At the beginning of 2013 the Commissioner’s powers were strengthened through additional reviews of how complaints are handled once in the chain of command; however, the Commissioner continues to assert that she still does not have enough power to tackle complaints within the military and, since 2010, has been calling for the creation of an Ombudsman for the Armed Forces. Although this proposal has been endorsed by the House of Commons Defence Committee, no action has yet been taken.
Senior Foreign Law Specialist
 Military, Judiciary of England and Wales, http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-in-detail/jurisdictions/military-jurisdiction (last visited May 29, 2013).
 Naval Discipline Act 1957, c. 53, 5 & 6 Eliz. II, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/53/; Army Act 1955, c. 18, Regnal 3 & 4 Eliz. II, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/3-4/18/contents; Air Force Act 1955, c. 19, Regnal. 3 & 4 Eliz. II, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/3-4/19/contents.
 Judge Advocate General, Guidance on Sentencing in the Court Martial (version 3) ¶ 1.2 (2011), http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/courts/judge-advocate-general/guidance-sentencing-court-martial.pdf.
 Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Joshua Rozenberg, Forces to Face Single Justice Body, The Daily Telegraph (London), July 28, 2005, at 27 (accessed via Lexis).
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/contents. See Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Judge Advocate General, supra note 4, ¶ 1.2.
 Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Cooper v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 48843/99, ¶ 117 (2003), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/ search.aspx?i=001-61549, cited in Judge Advocate General, supra note 4, ¶ 2.2.
 Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, § 155.
 Judge Advocate General, supra note 4, ¶ 2.4.
 Id. ¶ 2.7.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, §§ 52–53. The offenses that may be tried summarily by a Commanding Officer are listed in Schedule 1 of this Act and include theft offenses, possession of illegal drugs, criminal damage, assault and battery, and driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. If permission is given, additional offenses may be dealt with summarily by the accused’s commanding officer including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession in public of an offensive weapon, or fraud.
 Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, § 123.
 Id., Explanatory Notes, ¶ 7.
 Id. § 115.
 Id., Explanatory Notes, ¶ 249.
 Id. § 129.
 Judiciary of England and Wales, supra note 1.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, § 364.
 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, http://www.echr. coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.
 Rozenberg, supra note 7.
 Defence Committee, Eighth Report: The Work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces, 2012–13, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/720/72002.htm.
 Id. ¶ 2.2.
 Ministry of Defence, Redress of Individual Grievances: Service Complaints, Issue 2.2, June 201, JSP 831, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27866/jsp831_v22.pdf.
 Defence Committee, supra note 29, ¶ 2.3.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, § 338.
 Id. ¶ 30.
 Code of Practice on Services to Be Provided by the Armed Forces to Victims of Crime, JSP 839, Version 1.0, Ministry of Defence, ¶ 10.2, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file /190877/jsp839.pdf.
 SPA Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape, Service Prosecution Authority, ¶ 2.8, http://spa.independent .gov.uk/linkedfiles/spa/test/about_us/20130301-spa-rape-policy-final.doc (last visited July 9, 2013).
 Ministry of Defence, The MOD Bullying and Harrassment Complaints Procedures, JSP 763, July 2013, at 36, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209888/20130603-JSP_763-Version_1_July_2013-U.PDF (emphasis in original).
 Carrie Hunt et al., Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Literature Review 13 (Centre for Equality and Diversity at Work, Manchester Business School, Working Paper Series No. 59, 2006), http://research.mbs.ac.uk /equality-diversity/Portals/0/docs/WPS59Sexualharassment.pdf.
 April 25, 2013, Parl. Deb. H.C. (6th ser.) 1250W, available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa /cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130425/text/130425w0009.htm.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, § 113. A list of serious offenses are listed in Schedule 2 of the Act.
 Id., Explanatory Notes, ¶ 246.
 Id., c. 52, sched. 2, § 12.
 Id. § 116.
 Id. § 121.
 Background and Change, Service Prosecuting Authority, Ministry of Defence, http://spa.independent .gov.uk/test/about_us/index.htm (last visited May 29, 2013).
 The Inspectorate’s Report on the Service Prosecuting Authority 12 (July 2010), http://spa.independent .gov.uk/linkedfiles/spa/test/about_us/publication_scheme/spa_dec10_rpt.pdf.
 SPA Policy for Prosecuting Cases of Rape, Service Prosecution Authority, http://spa.independent.gov.uk /linkedfiles/spa/test/about_us/20130301-spa-rape-policy-final.doc (last visited July 9, 2013).
 The Inspectorate’s Report on the Service Prosecuting Authority, supra note 61.
 Parl. Deb. H.C., supra note 44.
 Id. 1251W.
 Id. 1253W.
 Sean Raymont, Iraq Inquiry Clears Army of Systemic Brutality, Sunday Telegraph (London), Aug. 28, 2011, at 26 (accessed via Lexis).
 Audrey Gillan, Human Rights Law Protects Prisoners of UK Troops Abroad, Rule Lords in Landmark Case: Family Campaign: Ruling Raises Hopes for Public Inquiry, Guardian (London), June 14, 2007, at 4 (accessed via Lexis).
 Raymont, supra note 71.
 Armed Forces Act 2006, c. 52, sched. 2.
 Service Complaints Commissioner of the Armed Forces, Annual Report 2012, at 22, http://armedforcescomplaints.independent.gov.uk/linkedfiles/afcindependent/426354_ssc_ar_2012.pdf.
 Defence Committee – Eighth Report: The Work of the Service Complaints Commissioner for the Armed Forces, 2012–13, ¶ 30, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmdfence/720 /72002.htm.
 Press Release, Service Commissioner for the Armed Forces, SCC No. 3/2013 (Mar. 21, 2013), http://armed forcescomplaints.independent.gov.uk/linkedfiles/afcindependent/scc-annualreport2012.pdf.
 Service Complaints Commissioner of the Armed Forces, supra note 76, at 6.
Last Updated: 06/06/2015