United Kingdom special forces personnel could face criminal prosecution after evidence gathered by the public inquiry into SAS conduct in Afghanistan suggested Schedule 2 offences including murder or manslaughter may have been committed during detention operations, according to court disclosures reported on Monday. The referral to the Defence Serious Crime Unit marks the first time the inquiry has publicly linked its work to possible charges, intensifying pressure on a process that is already hearing much of its testimony behind closed doors.
From inquiry files to the DSCU
The BBC reported that UK special forces handed material to the military police earlier this year after Ministry of Defence reviewers, building on the Independent Inquiry Relating to Afghanistan, concluded the evidence met thresholds in the Armed Forces Act for serious crimes. The unit, created in 2022 to investigate the most severe allegations against service members, has completed a scoping review but has not opened full investigations while the inquiry continues, according to documents cited in High Court proceedings.
The Ministry of Defence told the broadcaster it would be inappropriate to run parallel criminal cases while the inquiry is still gathering testimony. Lawyers for witnesses and veterans counter that the pause leaves alleged victims' families without a clear timeline for charges even as public hearings stretch into next year.
Detentions between 2010 and 2013
The inquiry is examining whether Special Air Service teams unlawfully killed detainees in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013 and whether commanders obscured the circumstances. The evidentiary tranche now with the DSCU relates to multiple detention missions during that window, not a single firefight, the BBC said.
Panorama has pursued related allegations for more than eight years, including claims that handcuffed civilians and children were executed. The government established the public inquiry in 2022 after those broadcasts, and commissioners have since taken thousands of pages of testimony, much of it classified.
High Court fight over closed sessions
News of the referral surfaced during a judicial review application brought by a senior British officer who served in Afghanistan. The officer won permission to challenge inquiry procedures after his legal team was excluded from closed sessions with whistleblowers.
Court filings quote inquiry counsel arguing investigators must protect identities of sources who fear, in the officer's paraphrase, grievous consequences from UK special forces if they are exposed. The officer's lawyers say fairness requires an opportunity to test allegations, either directly or through counsel. The standoff illustrates how criminal accountability and historical fact-finding are colliding in the same docket.
What happens next
Until the inquiry gavels out, the DSCU is expected to hold its file in abeyance. When—or if—investigators move, cases would be tried under service law with the same Schedule 2 catalogue that covers murder, manslaughter, and torture. Parliament has already funded years of litigation; Monday's disclosure signals that prosecutors may eventually have to choose between charging individuals named in the inquiry and accepting that some evidence will never be aired in open court.