[AFB0009]

Written evidence submitted by HHJ Alan M Large, Judge Advocate General

Introduction

I am the Judge Advocate General, and am responsible for the leadership of the 5 Judge Advocates working in the Service Justice System (SJS).  As a Judge Advocate and Circuit Judge, I sit in the Court Martial and Crown Court.  As Judge Advocate General, I run the Office of the JAG (OJAG).  I have been consulted on many of the AFB26 provisions in draft form. 

Judge Advocates sit as judges in the Service Courts, namely the Court Martial (which since the last AFB has been modernised to include at least one female member and Boards selected from all three Services), Summary Appeal Court (a judge advocate sits with 2 lay members hearing appeals from summary hearings in much the same way as the Crown Court appellate function), and the Service Civilian Court (similar to a  magistrates’ court jurisdiction over accompanying civilians overseas).   Like Circuit Judges in the Crown Court, Judge Advocates are appointed by the independent Judicial Appointments Commission and their pay and conditions are the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, like the rest of the judiciary of which I and the Judge Advocates are a part, rather than of the Ministry of Defence.   Judge Advocates also sit as of right in the Crown Court.

There are two military court centres (Bulford in Wiltshire and Catterick in North Yorkshire), which are modern, purpose built facilities with two court rooms in each centre.  The court facilities are excellent, with technical support which is outstanding.  The Service Courts also sit in Cyprus and Germany, and may sit anywhere elsewhere in the world using portable court equipment.

The SJS exists to support the operational effectiveness of the armed forces, and takes account of additional factors including:

• the effect of the alleged offending on operational effectiveness;
• the ranks of the accused and the victim;
• whether the offence involved an abuse of rank;
• the prior disciplinary record of the accused; and.
• the reputation of the armed forces.

Sentencing options differ also, with available sentences including dismissal, Service detention and reduction rank, in addition to all civilian sentences from life imprisonment to a fine.  The Service environment is very different to the civilian one.

The Service Courts have the full range of special measures to support vulnerable victims, including pre-recorded cross-examination. 

Entering FY 26/27, the organisation now matches the Ministry of Justice in case management standards and performance reporting and is leading the way in adopting digital tools that improve timeliness and effective case progression.

Work is being undertaken to ensure that the Service Justice System is ready for large scale armed combat.

Service Justice System

To what extent will the Bill’s provisions on the Service Justice System help achieve the Government’s target of halving Violence Against Women and Girls within a decade? 

It is not possible to state precisely the effect of the measures in the Bill.  It will be for the Service Police to determine whether to apply to the court to impose many of the measures, and the Service Courts will be ready to hear any application which is made to it, and to grant it if appropriate.  Service Courts will also be able to make appropriate orders after conviction or acquittal in the Court Martial, which will add to the courts’ powers over a defendant.   These will bring the Service Courts in line with their civilian equivalents, giving them power to prevent sexual harm/stalking/domestic abuse and to ensure that these orders and Service restraining orders are enforceable in the civilian courts if a defendant has left the armed forces.

It should be borne in mind that these orders come in addition to other recent changes of policy, such as the Zero Tolerance policies, and forthcoming changes, such as the Independent Legal Advice to a complainant about issues such as forensic analysis of their phones and access to records such as Social Services or medical records.  

The Service Courts also follow my guidelines on sentence which add the Service context to civilian sentencing guidance[1].

What is the expected impact of granting additional powers to Service Courts to make orders relating to sexual harm, domestic abuse, and stalking? 

Applications for relevant new orders will be considered by a Judge Advocate, and granted if appropriate.  This will add to the powers of the court to intervene in cases prior to a prosecution or conviction, ensuring that orders can be made which require compliance from the defendant.  These expanded powers will allow the court to impose conditions tailored to the unique operational and living environments of service personnel, reducing risk both on and off duty.

Do the Bill’s measures go far enough to support and ensure justice for victims of service offences? 

The Bill’s measures provide the support which will be given from the various new Orders, and bring the Service Justice System (SJS) into line with the civilian system. 

How will the Service Policing Protocol improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Service Justice System? 

This is outside my  area of responsibility.

Are the Bill’s measures relating to concurrent jurisdiction sufficient? 

It is my considered view that the Bill’s measures relating to concurrent jurisdiction are sufficient.  There are several arguments here, which I will deal with briefly.

Conviction rates

CPS data confirms that the conviction rate for adult rape-flagged[2] cases after trial in 2023 was 23.9%[3] and in 2024 was 23.1% [4]. The MOD equivalents for rape cases, based on very small numbers, are 31% and 29%.  

Directors of Public and Service Prosecutions’ Protocol

This works well.  Cases generally end up in the correct jurisdiction.  A significant number of cases are sent by the SPA  to the CPS.  Consultation between SPA and CPS is mandatory in cases of murder, manslaughter, rape, sexual assault with or without penetration, all allegations of domestic abuse or child abuse, or where the suspect is  under 18. The protocol also instructs prosecutors to seek assurance from the Service Police that the victim has been asked whether they have any views on which jurisdiction, SJS or CJS, they would like the case to be dealt with in. AFB26 improves the quality of advice provided to victims on which system of justice they would prefer to try their case.

Delay

For sex cases, a target is set at 56 days from Stage 4 to day 1 of trial, and this was achieved for 78% of cases.  For all other cases, the target is within 84 days of Stage 4, which means approximately 7 months from direction for trial by the Director of Service Prosecutions, and this was achieved on 92.25% of occasions in 2025.  Delay is often due to the availability of defence counsel.  The latest information shows that the average time for a case in the Service Courts is 166 days from direction to conclusion.  Delay in cases causes problems with morale of victims and defendants, discipline and operational effectiveness.

Victim support

The VWCU provides bespoke support for all witnesses of sexual offences.  This is significantly better than the provision generally available elsewhere.  

Legal advice for Victims

The government has announced it is introducing free legal advice for victims to help them deal with police requests for phone analysis, defence requests for access to social services, counselling or medical records.  This is not available elsewhere. 

Are the Bill’s measures granting additional powers to Commanding Officers appropriate?

This is outside my area of responsibility.

HHJ Alan M Large

Judge Advocate General

24th February 2026