Five SAS soldiers arrested on suspicion of murder after a secret mission against Islamic State were returned to combat within 48 hours of questioning and then remained under investigation for three years before the inquiry ended without charges, an investigation has revealed. The regiment’s own association says the pursuit of soldiers in this way has damaged recruitment and retention to the point where it presents “a threat to national security and operational readiness”.
The men were detained at their secret bases in Syria and Iraq after a mission in July 2022, during which they shot dead two teenage boys who had refused to surrender. The pair were unarmed but, according to reporting by The Times, were working for Islamic State at the time. Their homes in Britain were later raided by the Royal Military Police and they were warned they could face life sentences if convicted of murder.
All five have since left the Army. No charges were ever brought.
For us at Great British PAC, this case raises a question that goes to the heart of Britain’s national security: how can we expect our finest soldiers to take extraordinary risks in defence of this country if they face years of legal uncertainty over decisions made in combat? We believe in accountability under the law. We also believe that accountability must be fair, timely and proportionate. Three years of unresolved suspicion, ending without charges, raises serious questions about whether those standards were met.
“The facts speak for themselves”
A spokesman for the Special Air Service Regimental Association (Sasra) told The Daily Telegraph: “The facts speak for themselves, and the situation is not acceptable. These are incredibly serious issues impacting our soldiers’ legal and human rights, mental well-being, their careers, morale, family life and chances of employment beyond the Army. In our view the situation also presents a threat to national security and operational readiness, as it erodes the will to fight and breaches the bond between soldier and state.”
The association is supporting the men through legal remedies and is pressing the Government for policy change to stop similar cases recurring, the Telegraph reports. The fallout has affected retention in the regiment, with highly experienced soldiers reported to be quitting rather than risk criminalisation for decisions taken on operations.
Brigadier Ed Butler, Sasra’s president and a former commanding officer of 22 SAS, warned in August that repeated witch hunts against serving soldiers were hollowing out recruitment into the elite unit and, by extension, leaving the country more exposed to Russia. He accused the Government of “not having the backs” of personnel and said the effect on morale was “seriously damaging”.
An internal review said self-defence. The inquiry still ran for three years.
According to witness statements seen by the investigation, an SAS shooting incident review concluded the soldiers had acted in self-defence. That recommendation was reportedly rejected by Sir Gwyn Jenkins, the current head of the Royal Navy and a former Director Special Forces, who referred the men to the military police. A dedicated military police inquiry, reported under the name Operation Tanglement, followed.
The men questioned the lawfulness of their own treatment at the highest level, writing to Sir Keir Starmer when he was prime minister. Their letters went unanswered.
Wes Streeting, the Defence Secretary, has not met the men or their lawyers. He wrote on Friday to the Defence Serious Crime Unit asking it to consider concerns raised about the handling of the Service Police investigation, but the soldiers remain without the meeting they have sought.
A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “Our personnel are respected worldwide for their professionalism and dedication, and they make extraordinary sacrifices in defence of the nation. They are also entitled to expect that any investigation is conducted fairly and professionally and rightly there are procedures in place for people to report concerns.”
The Troubles Bill returns on Monday
The Syria investigation is separate from the Northern Ireland legacy cases covered by the Bill, but veterans’ representatives argue that both raise wider questions about the legal treatment of British service personnel.
The case lands in Westminster at a sensitive moment. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill 2026-27 returns to the Commons on Monday for line-by-line committee scrutiny, having been carried over from the previous session and reintroduced in May 2026.
The Bill would repeal and replace parts of the Legacy Act 2023, whose conditional immunity scheme was ruled incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights by the High Court in Northern Ireland and the Court of Appeal. On 12 October the Government tabled a package of amendments it says will give veterans “robust, permanent legal protections”. These include a “compelling new evidence” threshold before fresh investigations can be launched, a requirement that the Attorney General consent, acting quasi-judicially, to any serious Troubles-related prosecution, an explicit rejection of equivalence between soldiers and terrorists, and a ban on veterans being cold-called at home. Mr Streeting said the changes would ensure “decisions on historic cases properly take account of the operational realities faced by our Armed Forces”.
Campaigners are not persuaded. In a joint statement, Sasra, the SBS Association and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association said the Bill would not adequately protect soldiers who served in Northern Ireland from being dragged through the courts, and fear its loopholes will still be exploited. Sasra has separately told LBC it is prepared to mount “a robust legal challenge” unless ministers change course, and has demanded that no proceedings be allowed without compelling new evidence, that key decisions be taken outside Northern Ireland and that there be effective independent oversight of how veterans are treated.
The associations’ warnings carry weight beyond the regiment. Al Carns, the former Armed Forces minister and a Royal Marine of 24 years’ service, wrote in the foreword to a Policy Exchange report on the SAS in Northern Ireland: “Accountability is not the same as perpetual investigation. Justice is not served when the process itself becomes the punishment.”
The stakes are measured in decades of service. More than 250,000 personnel took part in Operation Banner, the longest continuous deployment in British military history, during which 1,441 UK military personnel died, 722 of them in paramilitary attacks, according to the House of Commons Library. A Government spokesman said: “There is no question of needless repeat investigations or of any veteran being prosecuted for having followed the rules.”
Three years of investigation ended without charges. Yet the wider questions about fairness, accountability and the treatment of Britain’s Armed Forces remain unanswered.
GREAT BRITISH PAC REACTION
We believe Britain owes its Armed Forces more than gratitude after a mission is complete. Soldiers must be held accountable under the law, but investigations must also be fair, proportionate and conducted without unnecessary delay.
Our concern is that years of unresolved legal proceedings risk undermining the confidence of those who serve, weakening recruitment and retention, and ultimately damaging the operational readiness on which Britain’s security depends.
Claire Bullivant, Chief Executive of Great British PAC, said:
“What an absolute disgrace. Five of Britain’s finest SAS soldiers risked their lives fighting Islamic State, only to find themselves treated like criminals by the very country they swore to defend. Three years under suspicion of murder, their homes raided, their careers destroyed, and not a single charge brought.
These are the men we send into the world’s most dangerous places to do the jobs nobody else can do. They put their lives on the line so the rest of us can sleep safely in our beds. And this is how Britain repays them?
Obviously it is important to say nobody is above the law, but nor should our brave servicemen be subjected to endless investigations that become a punishment in themselves.
When experienced SAS soldiers are leaving because they no longer trust their own country to stand behind them, we have a national security crisis of our own making.
Our enemies must be laughing at us. We are doing their work for them by driving some of Britain’s finest fighting men out of uniform.
The Government needs to stop hiding behind legal technicalities, listen to those who have actually served and deliver proper protections for our Armed Forces.
Britain’s soldiers should be feared by our enemies, respected by our Government and protected by the country they serve.
If we expect our soldiers to have the courage to defend Britain, our politicians should have the backbone to defend them.”
Richard Thomson, former Royal Marine Commando and National Director of Great British PAC, said:
“The process is a punishment in itself. Three years facing life imprisonment for decisions made in the heat of combat – cleared only with the threat the case can be reopened – and all five men in question have now left the military. This government comes after its own instead of standing by the soldiers it sends into danger.
This is how it is driving our finest people out of the military. Special Forces selection finds the rare few with the skills, nerve and judgement for the job. By pursuing them through prolonged investigations – and with the Troubles Bill returning to the Commons – we are draining the special forces community of experienced operators, eroding the will to fight, and leaving Britain exposed. National security is not something we can take for granted yet Labour seems to!”
We will continue to demand meaningful legal safeguards for those who have served Britain, proper accountability for any investigative failures identified and a system that protects both justice and the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces.
Britain cannot ask its soldiers to defend the nation while leaving them uncertain whether the nation will defend their right to fair treatment.
