Anne and Jane* were 10 years old when a staff member at their British military school in Bünde, Germany, allegedly singled them out and sexually abused them. Now in their 50s, the women say he forced them to stay silent, and for decades they only talked about it with each other. “He said if we ever told anybody, then our fathers would lose their jobs and they would be kicked out of the army,” Jane said. “Being two young 10-year-old girls who basically followed their fathers around the world, their jobs were our lives.” But five years ago, after her father had retired from military service, Anne learned the man was still alive and decided to come forward and report the alleged abuse. She said she did it hoping that she and Jane would finally see justice. More than 40 years later, they are still affected by what they allege happened to them. “He was my first sexual encounter at the age of 10,” Jane said. “I struggled with relationships at an early age … I’ve never ever been able to be in a loving relationship.” Similarly, Anne said that from a young age “there was a spiral of self-destruction” and she had been left traumatised. As a school governor, she said smells from her childhood brought back memories of the alleged abuse. “I remember walking through the school corridor, and I just felt sick,” she said. But despite their efforts to bring their alleged abuser to justice, a joint investigation by the Guardian and openDemocracy has found that he cannot be prosecuted, because although he was a British citizen employed by the British army, incomplete records of his employment have repeatedly halted investigations into the allegations. Nato rules state that countries with armed forces abroad can apply their laws to people who fall under their jurisdiction, including serving members of the military and civilian employees. But the absence of the man’s employment contract, along with no proof that he paid tax to the British crown, meant the police could not prove he was employed on a Ministry of Defence (MoD) London contract rather than a locally employed contract. The women say the MoD refuses to take responsibility for the abuse they allege they suffered while under its care. _____ Anne and Jane believe their alleged abuser deliberately targeted them because they were isolated from other children at the school. “I was shy, very, very shy and introverted, and also struggled with all the moving,” Anne said. “I was in quite a bad place anyway by the time I got to Germany.” She said it initially felt “so exciting to be singled out by this incredibly charismatic man. Everyone sort of swooned in his presence, adults and children alike.” She added: “When he did turn his gaze very singly on me, I absolutely fell for it.” The man’s interactions with the girls became sexual, they said, with much of the alleged abuse taking place in his office. “Once we’d get into that room, he’d lock the door from the inside,” Jane said, “and then it went very, very dark very quickly.” Jane can still remember the number plate of his car, reciting it effortlessly. “My stomach used to sink when I saw that car,” she said, “because I knew he was in there and I knew what the day was going to entail for both of us.” The alleged abuse, which took place in the 1980s, began to affect the girls straight away. Anne said she “went into a state of terror” at the time. “I was having night terrors, I was sleepwalking, I believed someone was outside looking into my bedroom. I hated getting changed at night, I’d go to bed in my clothes.” _________ Anne and Jane kept in contact for a few years after they left the school, writing letters to each other in which they would reference the alleged abuse – and which Anne still has. But later they lost touch. It was only when they were in their 50s that they reconnected on Facebook, after Anne had come forward in 2018 to disclose what had happened as part of the Truth Project, run by the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abin England and Wales. As part of her disclosure, Anne said she was willing for the police to be notified, and the case was passed to the Royal Military Police (RMP). The force told her it could only proceed if it could track down Jane to corroborate her story. Around the time the two connected online, detectives also found Jane after police knocked on her parents’ door and told them the RMP needed to speak to her as an “important witness” in a case. This led Jane to tell her parents for the first time what had happened to her. With the RMP now able to investigate, Anne believed her alleged abuser would be brought to justice. “I thought they could arrest him and make him go to court and go to prison,” she said. Her hopes were shattered when the RMP said it could not progress the case because it did not have jurisdiction. She was told her alleged abuser could not be prosecuted in the UK because they could not find evidence that he had paid tax to HMRC, meaning the case would have to be prosecuted in Germany, where the statute of limitations had expired. The women were also told the RMP had been unable to find any evidence of his tax contributions in Germany. Although the RMP was given some evidence of his employment at the school, including staff lists, witness accounts and photographs, a lack of more formal evidence about his employment or tax status stalled all progress in their case. After the women complained about the outcome, they received a written apology from a senior officer, who said: “The handling of your case fell below the professional standards you had every right to expect.” The MoD’s then newly formed Defence Serious Crime Unit (DSCU) launched a second investigation, but it reached the same conclusion. Army records for the school from the time had been destroyed, and without evidence of his employment contract, which may have indicated his tax status, they were told there was no way forward. Jane said it felt like “another door slamming in your face” when the second investigation ended.
While Anne and Jane want justice for themselves, they are also telling their story in the hope that it may resonate with others and expose the jurisdiction issues that have denied them resolution. Emma Norton, a lawyer from the Centre for Military Justice, said: “To be told after so long, and after having taken the incredibly brave step of reporting the abuse, that nothing now can be done because they appear to have fallen into a ‘jurisdictional gap’ is devastating.” She added: “Given the number of overseas military schools, there is a serious risk that this gap is likely to affect other victims too.” Jess Phillips, a former safeguarding minister, said the case “exposes a cultural issue within the MoD”. “The MoD needs to treat these two women as people who have been wrongfully treated while under their care,” she said. “We do not have to continue the cultural failing of the past – we can make the future better.” Jane said: “The MoD had a duty of care to us. They were our caregivers.” She added: “We need somebody to stand up and say: ‘We failed you.'” While they are losing hope that their alleged abuser may be prosecuted, they are still fighting for an acknowledgment of, and accountability for, the alleged childhood abuse they say they suffered and that has affected their whole lives. “We should not have had to go through that,” Anne said. “I want public accountability.” But she feels increasingly pessimistic that anyone will be held responsible for what she and Jane experienced. “Hope feels like a very stupid act right now for me,” she added. A spokesperson for the Defence Serious Crime Command, which the DSCU is part of, said: “Every child has the right to be safe at school, and our thoughts remain with the victims. We deeply regret that the initial handling of the case fell below the standards we expect and have formally apologised to the victims. A new investigation laA review concluded earlier this year that the Defence Serious Crime Command does not have the authority to pursue charges.
“We have taken several steps to strengthen investigative practices across defence and remain committed to ensuring every case is fully and thoroughly investigated to deliver justice for victims.” *Names have been changed.
In the UK, the NSPCC offers support to children on 0800 1111, and adults concerned about a child on 0808 800 5000. The National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) offers support for adult survivors on 0808 801 0331. In the US, call or text the Childhelp abuse hotline on 800-422-4453. In Australia, children, young adults, parents and teachers can contact the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800, or Bravehearts on 1800 272 831, and adult survivors can contact Blue Knot Foundation on 1300 657 380. Other sources of help can be found at Child Helplines International.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQs Alleged Abuse Victims at a British Military School in Germany and Their Struggle for Justice
Beginner Questions
What is this case about
It concerns allegations that children were abused at a British military school in Germany and the victims long fight to get justice
Which school is involved
The allegations centre on a British Forces school in Germany that served military families stationed there
Who are the alleged victims
Former pupils who say they were abused while attending the school often as children of British service personnel
Who are the alleged abusers
Reports have named teachers and other staff at the school Some were investigated or convicted others were not
When did the alleged abuse happen
Most allegations date from the 1960s to the 1980s though some reports cover other periods
Why is this only coming to light now
Many victims stayed silent for decades out of shame fear or because they were children at the time Some only spoke out as adults
What do the victims want
They want their allegations investigated those responsible held accountable and recognition and support for what they suffered
Intermediate Questions
Why has justice been so hard to achieve
Because the abuse happened decades ago in another country at a school that has since closed with many records lost or sealed
What legal obstacles do victims face
Time limits on bringing claims the death of alleged perpetrators missing evidence and questions over which countrys courts have jurisdiction
Which country has jurisdiction
This is a key dispute The school was British but located in Germany so both UK and German law may be relevant
What role does the Ministry of Defence play
The MoD ran the school through British Forces Germany Victims argue the MoD owed them a duty of care and failed to protect them
Have there been police investigations
Yes UK and German authorities have looked into some allegations but victims say the investigations were slow limited or dropped
Have any perpetrators been convicted
Some individuals have faced trial but many alleged abusers were never charged and some have since died
Why do victims say the system failed them
They report being ignored passed between agencies told their cases were too old or given little information about progress
What support is available to victims
Charities victim support services
