The body responsible for administering Britain’s military courts has failed to meet its target for the timely listing of sexual-offence trials for three consecutive years, according to a new independent inspection.
His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate found that the Military Court Service (MCS) missed its timeliness target for sexual-offence trials in 2024 and 2025, and had again failed to meet it in 2026 at the time of the inspection.
The missed targets come against a backdrop of persistent concern over sexual misconduct within the British Armed Forces. The Army has faced intense criticism over its handling of cases including that of Gunner Jaysley Beck, whose death was found by a coroner to have been contributed to by institutional failures.
Official figures have also exposed the scale of the problem. The Ministry of Defence’s first unified survey of sexualised behaviour, published in November 2025, found that 67% of female regular personnel had experienced at least one form of sexualised behaviour in the previous year, compared with 34% of men. Nearly a third of women reported unwanted touching, while 8% reported non-consensual sexual activity.
The MOD has responded with a series of reforms, including moving investigations into bullying, harassment and discrimination outside the traditional chain of command. But the repeated failure to meet targets for bringing sexual-offence cases to trial will add to questions over whether changes to the military justice system are translating into faster and more effective outcomes for those reporting serious abuse.
Serious sexual offences committed by Service personnel in the UK can be tried either in civilian courts or through the military justice system. Decisions about jurisdiction are discussed between the Service Prosecuting Authority and civilian prosecutors, taking into account factors including the wishes of the victim and whether the alleged offence occurred on a military establishment.
The inspectorate did not conclude that the delays were entirely the fault of the Military Court Service. It said missed targets were often “associated with factors outside the MCS’s direct control, including the availability of barristers, the complexity or sensitivity of cases and longer periods required to find suitable trial dates.”
It also cautioned that the military justice system deals with relatively small numbers of cases, meaning that a handful of complex cases can have a disproportionate effect on overall performance figures. Nevertheless, the repeated failure stands out in an inspection that was otherwise broadly positive about the administration of military justice.
The report found performance at later stages of cases to be more mixed than at their outset. Sentencing timeliness was also weaker, with delays linked in part to the availability of advocates, the complexity of cases and requirements to reconvene Court Martial boards for sentencing. The Director of the Military Court Service told inspectors that the organisation had capacity to take on more work.
The inspection also highlighted weaknesses in the administrative infrastructure supporting military courts. Despite sophisticated technology inside courtrooms, listing and case progression still depend on a mixture of fragmented computer systems, spreadsheets and manual processes. Inspectors warned that this creates duplication, makes information harder to reconcile and means staff do not have a single authoritative view of live court business.
Court Martial board selection was another area identified for reform. The current system depends on the Army, Royal Navy and RAF providing eligible personnel, with Army and RAF arrangements described as more dispersed and manually intensive than those of the Navy. Inspectors said a more centralised, transparent and auditable system could improve confidence in the independence and integrity of Court Martial board selection.
The report also found shortcomings in how the MCS gathers feedback. Although Court Martial board members provide formal feedback, there is no equivalent systematic process for defendants, victims, witnesses, lawyers or other professional users of the courts.
Despite these concerns, the overall assessment of the Military Court Service was strongly positive.
Inspectors found that 96.3% of Plea and Trial Preparation Hearings between the first quarter of 2025 and the first quarter of 2026 were listed within the 42-day target, with 94.7% of those hearings effective. They praised staff for proactively checking legal aid and representation before hearings and for following up outstanding actions to prevent cases drifting. A sexual-offence liaison officer also described infrastructure at the permanent military courts at Bulford and Catterick as excellent for vulnerable victims, including separate access routes, private outdoor space and dedicated accommodation designed to prevent contact with defendants.
The inspectorate ultimately described the MCS as a high-performing organisation with committed staff, effective leadership and strong confidence among those who use the system.
But the finding that sexual-offence trial-listing targets have now been missed across 2024, 2025 and 2026 provides a significant qualification to that otherwise favourable picture, particularly given the sensitivity and seriousness of the cases involved.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate