Harry Dunn’s mother has called for police forces across Britain to receive clearer guidance on cases involving United States personnel, after a Guardian investigation reported that another British victim’s case was handled through the US military justice system.
Charlotte Charles, whose 19-year-old son died in 2019 after a crash involving an American driver near RAF Croughton in Northamptonshire, said British authorities must be more prepared to assert jurisdiction when alleged offences take place in the UK. Her intervention follows reporting on the case of Sarah Steele, who the Guardian said was strangled by an American pilot while in Britain.
According to the Guardian, Foreign Secretary David Lammy is expected to raise questions with the United States about Steele’s case. The report said the matter passed into the US military system, where the serviceman was acquitted of the more serious charge by a military jury.
Charles said the case raised wider concerns about how British institutions respond when US personnel stationed in the UK are accused of causing harm to British citizens or residents. She argued that victims should not be left dependent on foreign proceedings where alleged conduct occurred on British soil.
The legal position in such cases can be complex. US service members and associated personnel in Britain may be covered by international arrangements, including agreements governing visiting forces. These rules can create overlapping jurisdiction between the UK and the sending state, depending on the status of the person involved and the nature of the alleged offence.
However, shared jurisdiction does not mean the United States automatically takes over every case. In criminal matters, the question of which authority investigates or prosecutes can depend on the facts, the applicable agreements and decisions taken by the relevant agencies. Charles said that local forces must understand those rules and should not assume that British authorities have no role.
Dunn’s death became one of the most prominent recent disputes involving diplomatic immunity and accountability for US-linked personnel in the UK. He was killed when a car driven by Anne Sacoolas collided with his motorbike outside RAF Croughton. Sacoolas left the UK shortly after the crash, claiming diplomatic immunity, leading to a prolonged campaign by Dunn’s family.
In 2022, Sacoolas was sentenced by a UK court to eight months in prison, suspended for 12 months, after admitting causing death by careless driving. She appeared by video link from the United States. Dunn’s family said at the time that the conviction marked a significant step in their campaign for accountability, although they had repeatedly criticised the initial handling of the case.
Charles has now said that the issues exposed by her son’s case have not been resolved. She said other families had faced confusion and distress when alleged offences involving US personnel were not pursued through the British system in the way they expected.
Her concerns centre on the practical response by police and government authorities when a case has an international military or diplomatic dimension. In such situations, victims may face delays, uncertainty over which legal system applies and limited visibility over decisions made between governments.
The Guardian’s reporting on Steele’s case has renewed scrutiny of those procedures. Charles said the reported circumstances suggested a need for training and clearer operational direction for police forces, particularly in areas close to US bases or facilities used by American personnel.
The United States has a long-standing military presence in the UK, with personnel based at several sites. Incidents involving service members are generally dealt with under a mixture of domestic law, international agreements and military justice procedures. For victims and families, those arrangements can be difficult to navigate without clear explanations from authorities.
Legal experts have previously noted that jurisdictional questions in visiting forces cases are not only technical but also highly sensitive. They can involve diplomatic relations, military command structures and the rights of complainants or bereaved families to see allegations tested in a familiar legal system.
Charles’s comments do not determine how any individual case should be handled, and she has not claimed that a different legal forum would necessarily have produced a different outcome in Steele’s case. Her argument is that British victims should not be left with the impression that UK authorities are powerless when alleged offences happen in Britain.
The Foreign Office has not been quoted in the source material as giving a detailed response to the issues raised. If Lammy raises the matter with US officials, the discussion is likely to focus on how cases involving US personnel in the UK are referred, investigated and explained to victims.
The renewed attention on these cases places pressure on ministers, police leaders and prosecutors to show that jurisdictional decisions are properly understood and clearly communicated. For families affected by serious incidents, the central concern remains whether the British justice system is able and willing to protect those harmed on UK soil.
