This report examines how inequality is experienced within the British Armed Forces after enlistment, focusing on in-service discrimination, career progression, retention, and the operation of complaints and military justice systems. Drawing on official statistics, major inquiries and detailed case studies, it analyses how bullying, harassment and abuse are reported, investigated and often inadequately addressed, and how informal power structures shape outcomes for women and ethnic minority personnel. While much public debate has focused on who joins the Armed Forces, far less attention has been paid to what happens once individuals are inside the institution. This report should therefore be read alongside AOAV’s companion study – Uniform Inequality: who the British Armed Forces recruit, and who they leave behind – that focuses on recruitment and entry, which explores the class, gender and racial dynamics shaping who enters military service in the first place. Together, the two reports present a continuous picture of inequality in the Armed Forces, showing how barriers at entry are frequently reinforced rather than dismantled by institutional culture and accountability mechanisms once service begins.

_______________________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Racial and gender discrimination within the British Armed Forces has remained a persistent concern, despite reforms implemented by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) post-2010 to improve equality. While the Armed Forces officially embraced the Equality Act 2010 and launched initiatives to foster diversity, numerous reports and cases since then indicate that systemic racism and sexism endure.

Drawing on government and watchdog reports, as well as academic and media investigations, this report examines institutional trends over the past 15 years to assess how far claimed reforms have addressed discrimination across the Army, Royal Navy, and Royal Air Force (RAF).

It considers recruitment practices, career progression, retention, disciplinary actions, and justice outcomes, alongside case studies of service personnel, including victims and whistleblowers, and reviews major legal cases, parliamentary inquiries, and internal MoD reviews. In doing so, it evaluates whether recent reforms have delivered meaningful change or whether cultural and structural barriers to equality persist.

2. Scope and rationale 

For Action on Armed Violence, investigating racial and gender discrimination within the British Armed Forces is not simply a question of equality. It is a question of justice.

Public institutions that exercise exceptional power carry exceptional responsibility. When those institutions fail to treat their own personnel with fairness and dignity, they undermine the principles on which their authority rests. In documenting patterns of discrimination, harassment, and institutional failure, this report seeks to hold the Armed Forces accountable not only for their actions abroad, but for how they govern themselves.

AOAV has long argued that violence is not limited to physical harm. It is also structural. The exclusion, humiliation, and silencing of women and ethnic minority personnel constitute forms of harm that are often justified in the language of tradition, cohesion, or operational necessity. Where the military presents itself as a meritocracy and a force for good, such practices erode that claim from within.

This report sits within AOAV’s broader challenge to militarised exceptionalism, the idea that military institutions should be shielded from the standards of transparency and accountability expected elsewhere in public life. When systems are allowed to police themselves with limited external scrutiny, patterns of abuse can persist unchecked. The result is not cohesion, but impunity.

The experiences of those who have faced injustice while serving are therefore central to any credible assessment of institutional integrity. If discrimination is tolerated internally, it cannot be dismissed as incidental. If dignity cannot be safeguarded internally, claims of protection elsewhere ring hollow.

3. Evolving diversity since 2010: trends and reforms3.1 Representation

The British Armed Forces remain predominantly white and male, although diversity has increased slowly over the past decade. As of 2025, women comprise about 11.9% of the regular forces, or approximately 16,330 personnel, up from roughly 9 to 10% in 2010. Personnel from minority ethnic backgrounds account for around 12.2% of the Armed Forces, compared with about 7% in 2010. Progress, however, has been uneven across ranks. Only 3.3% of officers were non-white in 2024, up from 2.4% in 2012, while 13% of other ranks were non-white.

Differences between services are also stark. According to the House of Commons Library, the Army has the highest minority representation at 17.6% overall, a figure boosted in part by Commonwealth recruitment. The RAF and Royal Navy lag significantly behind, with minority representation ranging from approximately 4% to 6.8%.

Women remain particularly underrepresented in senior leadership. MoD figures show that in 2012 only six of the 470 highest ranking posts in the RAF were held by women, a disparity frequently described as evidence of a persistent “brass ceiling.” Although representation has increased since then, change at the top has been slow. By 2025, women held just 9.3% of senior officer roles.

3.2 Policy and targets

The MoD has publicly committed to improving these numbers. In the mid-2010s it set recruitment targets of 15% female and 10% BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) intake by 2020. Data from the UK Armed Forces Biannual Diversity Statistics show that by 2020 the military met its BAME recruitment target, with 11.7% of new recruits identifying as BAME, but fell short on female recruitment, which reached only 12.6%.

In 2021, the government announced a more ambitious goal that 30% of new recruits should be female by 2030. However, in the period between 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025 there was a decrease of 0.2% in the intake of women in the UK Regular Forces and the Future Reserves 2020.

The RAF has declared even higher ambitions, setting targets of 40% women and 20% ethnic minority intake by 2040, exceeding the goals set by the Army or Royal Navy. Achieving these targets has proven difficult. By 2024, women made up just 10.9% of intake, and there was no specific MoD target for ethnic minority recruitment. Minority intake did rise to 18.6% in 2024 to 2025, partly due to increased Commonwealth enlistment, according to House of Commons defence personnel statistics.

3.3 Reforms and strategies

Alongside numeric targets, the MoD introduced numerous policy reforms post-2010 to combat discrimination. Key among these was the removal of the remaining formal barriers to women, notably the historic ban on women in ground close combat roles, which was lifted in 2016. This allowed women to serve in infantry, armoured units, and submarines by 2018. The Armed Forces also updated their equality and diversity training and policies. For instance, the Defence Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018 to 2030 set out plans to foster a more inclusive culture.

The Armed Forces introduced mandatory diversity training and established internal networks to support female and minority personnel. Under the Armed Forces Act 2016, the Service Complaints system was reformed through the creation of an independent Service Complaints Ombudsman, replacing the previous commissioner, to provide greater oversight of grievance handling. The MoD has repeatedly stated a policy of “zero tolerance” for bullying, harassment, or discrimination.

Perhaps the most significant recent review was the Wigston Review into Inappropriate Behaviours, published in 2019 and commissioned in response to mounting evidence of misconduct. Air Chief Marshal Michael Wigston’s report found an “unacceptable level” of inappropriate behaviour across the services and described the existing system for dealing with it as “sub-optimal”.

Wigston noted that the “new generation” of service personnel were still led by a “pack mentality of white, middle-aged men” in positions of influence, reflecting an entrenched culture resistant to change. He made 36 recommendations, all of which were accepted by the Defence Secretary. These included faster and more transparent handling of complaints, with serious allegations investigated outside the normal chain of command, the introduction of anonymous reporting channels, the establishment of a Defence Authority to oversee culture and performance on diversity issues, and revamped training to instill core values. A follow-up progress review in 2020, chaired by Danuta Gray, an MoD non-executive director, added five further recommendations and noted that implementation needed to be more urgent.

Despite these efforts, questions remain about their effectiveness. The MoD’s own data show gradual improvement in diversity metrics, but change at senior levels has been slow. Moreover, multiple external investigations since 2010 by parliamentary committees, ombudsmen, and the media have found that the lived experience of many women and minority service members diverges sharply from official policy. The following sections explore these findings across recruitment, in-service life, and the justice system, drawing on both broad analysis and individual case studies.

4. Recruitment and entry: Efforts and controversies4.1 Outreach vs. backlash

Since 2010 the forces have ramped up outreach to women and minorities, but not without controversy. A striking example emerged in 2022 when the RAF’s head of recruitment, Air Vice-Marshal Maria Byford, temporarily slowed the intake of new trainees because the RAF was falling short of its diversity targets. She sought ways to legally prioritise qualified female and BAME candidates. This prompted the resignation of a senior female RAF recruitment officer in protest, amid media allegations that the RAF was practising “positive discrimination” against white men.

Byford defended the policy as “unashamed” positive action, saying “we are unashamed about doing that because I think that’s a good thing” in order to build a better service in the long run. She emphasised that standards would not be lowered, but that where candidates met requirements, the RAF Board would consider gender and ethnicity as factors in selection to boost diversity. The RAF had been “just shy” of its 2022 recruitment goals. It aimed for 25% women and 12% minority recruits that year, but fell short by five and four percentage points respectively.

This incident sparked heated debate. Critics, including some MPs and media commentators, accused the RAF of “wokery” and even unlawful bias against white males. By 2023 it was reported that around 30 white male RAF applicants received payouts of £5,000 each for being disadvantaged by the selection policies, an issue the MoD quietly settled.

The recruitment drive backlash brings to the fore a delicate balance. The Armed Forces are under pressure to better reflect British society, yet aggressive diversity drives can trigger internal dissent and legal risks if mishandled. Even pro-diversity measures, if deemed unfair, can become their own discrimination flashpoints and harm wider recruitment.

4.2 Pipeline barriers

For minority and female recruits who do join, discriminatory attitudes can surface early on. Testimonies indicate that racist and sexist banter persist in training units, creating a hostile environment that undermines recruitment gains.

For example, former Army recruit instructor Kerry-Ann Knight recalls that when she was posted as a trainer at the Army Foundation College in Harrogate in 2021, fellow instructors subjected her, the only Black woman in her unit, to open ridicule. Writing in The Guardian, Knight described how colleagues “took it in turns to shout out ‘watermelooooon!’ anytime I walked into the room”, while others laughed. She also overheard jokes about her “getting lynched” or being “tarred and feathered”, including references to violent scenes from Django Unchained used to taunt her.

Such overt racism, with echoes of Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow-era language, is far removed from the “inclusive” culture the MoD claims to promote. A 2020 investigation found that comments such as “people like you”, “you people from the colonies”, or “passport seeking” were still made openly toward ethnic minority recruits and soldiers. One veteran service member described his decade in uniform as “nothing but traumatic”.

These accounts suggest that bigoted stereotypes, including portrayals of non-white recruits as outsiders or opportunists, continue to circulate within military training environments. This points to uneven implementation and limited effectiveness of diversity training in addressing everyday racism at the earliest stages of service.

4.3 Historic exclusions and progress

On the gender side, the lifting of the combat ban opened all roles to women from 2018, marking a significant reform. By 2020, women were joining frontline infantry units and even special forces roles for the first time. Integration, however, has remained a work in progress.

The Royal Navy’s Submarine Service, for example, began admitting women in 2011, but cultural integration issues soon followed, as explored in a case study below. More broadly, the Armed Forces were until recently exempt from certain equality laws. The Equality Act 2010 initially allowed exemptions for sex discrimination where justified by “combat effectiveness” needs. Although these exemptions were later weakened by policy change, their legacy persisted. For years, the concept of operational necessity was used to resist equality measures.

As late as the mid-2010s, women were still barred from Royal Marine commando roles and some RAF Regiment posts. These restrictions were only lifted after studies found no valid operational reason for exclusion. As a result, women who joined before 2016 were aware that clear limits remained on the roles they could hold, which may have deterred some and contributed to slower growth in female recruitment and retention.

Recruitment reforms have gradually broadened the intake of underrepresented groups, but the experience of those recruits after entry has proven just as important. Without an inclusive training culture, many women and minority recruits become disillusioned early, undermining retention and the goal of a genuinely diverse force. In several years, including the year to March 2024, the Armed Forces recorded higher voluntary exit rates among female and BAME personnel, often linked to dissatisfaction or feelings of not belonging. This pattern points to a persistent leaky pipeline, despite gains at the point of recruitment.

The following sections examine what happens after recruitment, focusing on how discrimination shapes careers within the forces and how the system responds when concerns are raised.

5. In-service discrimination5.1 Career progression and retention

Promotion hurdles and “glass ceilings.” Once in service, women and minorities have often found advancement more difficult, both statistically and anecdotally. The case of Group Captain Wendy Williams illustrates the kind of institutional bias that has impeded career progression for women. Williams, the highest-ranking nurse in the RAF, was eligible in 2011 for promotion to a one star rank post leading the tri-service Defence Medical Group. According to The Guardian, despite being recommended and fully qualified, she was passed over in favour of a male doctor with less experience. She filed a complaint under the Equality Act, and in 2013 an Employment Tribunal ruled that the MoD had indeed discriminated on the basis of gender.

As reported in The Guardian, Williams won damages and stated that she hoped the case would “shatter glass ceilings” in the Armed Forces, urging that senior appointments be made on merit “and not with regard to a person’s gender.” The fact that it took a legal challenge for a highly credentialed woman to be treated fairly sent a strong message at the time. It also shed light on the broader picture. Women were, and remain, extremely underrepresented in the upper echelons.

Williams noted that only six out of 470 RAF top jobs were held by women, and similarly low ratios existed in the other services at the time. While the situation has improved marginally, with the Forces promoting a small number of women to two star and three star ranks, and the RAF appointing its first female Air Marshal in 2022, senior leadership remains overwhelmingly male. Many talented women encounter an apparent promotion wall in mid-career, with few reaching the rank of colonel or above. This perpetuates the dominance of what one review described as “white, middle-aged men” in positions of influence.

Ethnic minority personnel face a similar “brass ceiling.” In an article published for Black History Month 2025, it was noted that the British Army only promoted its first Black officers to the rank of Brigadier in the late 2010s. One of those officers, Brigadier Karl Harris, has spoken of the lack of visible minority leaders and how people from his community are often unaware that they can join the Army directly as officers. This reflects both a recruitment gap and a mentoring gap. The scarcity of BAME officers in senior roles means fewer mentors and sponsors to help junior minority officers navigate the system.

Unconscious bias in evaluations can also play a role, for example through subjective assessments that favour those who fit traditional expectations. The MoD’s own 2020 Diversity and Inclusion report acknowledged that retention of BAME personnel was an issue, noting that they leave at slightly higher rates than white personnel in some branches, and that improving promotion pathways was key to retention, although detailed data were not published. It is telling that as of April 2024, out of several hundred full Colonels in the Army, only a handful were from non-white backgrounds, and none had yet reached the rank of Major General. This indicates a continued representation gap at senior levels that reforms have not yet closed.

5.2 Retention and resignation

Perceived discrimination or lack of equal opportunity has driven some long-serving personnel to resign in frustration, sometimes very publicly. Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen, for example, served for 30 years in the Army, having been one of the first women at Sandhurst in the 1980s, and was widely regarded as highly capable. She ultimately resigned in 2019 after repeatedly being passed over for promotion. Allen became a whistleblower, publishing a book and giving evidence to Parliament about what she described as the Army’s sexist culture.

In reporting by Forces News and in an interview with Sky News, Allen described entrenched attitudes, including senior officers downplaying women’s achievements and an “unwritten rule” that speaking up about bias would end one’s career. In her written testimony to the Defence Committee, she recounted that after she began to speak out, “several senior female officers did contact me and attempt to influence my future media engagements, to paint a more positive military picture.” This amounted to pressure to remain silent about the problem. Her experience illustrates how cultural pressure to conform can stifle even senior women, and how those who challenge it risk being ostracised.

A further example comes from the Royal Navy Submarine Service, which during the 2010s was presented as a new frontier for gender integration after women were first permitted to serve on submarines in 2011. By 2022, however, a prominent female submariner, Lieutenant Sophie Brook, left the Navy and became a whistleblower due to pervasive harassment, discussed further in the next section. Brook had been on track to potentially become the first woman to command a submarine, but she described the culture within the Submarine Service as so toxic that it drove her, and others, out.

The loss of such capable personnel highlights that discrimination has consequences beyond moral and legal concerns. It also affects operational effectiveness. This point was raised in a 2021 Defence Committee inquiry, which warned that these issues “undermine the UK Armed Forces’ combat effectiveness,” noting that cohesive teams depend on trust and mutual respect.

5.3 Old attitudes die hard

A recurring theme is that reforms on paper often clash with deep-seated traditions and attitudes. Militaries have historically been conservative institutions and slow to change their culture. The British Armed Forces of the 2010s to 2020s carry legacies from earlier eras, some positive, such as esprit de corps and pride in service, and some negative, including a macho culture and informal cliques that can marginalise those seen as outsiders, such as women or minorities.

An article by B3sixty noted that the Wigston Review, published in 2019, identified a “pack mentality” among parts of the middle and senior leadership. The review argued that behaviours were “shaped by the armed forces of 20 years ago,” rather than by contemporary values. This suggests that many leaders came of age in a less inclusive military environment and have replicated those norms.

In such settings, women and minority personnel frequently report feeling the need to work “twice as hard” to be accepted. Female soldiers have described being assigned menial tasks unrelated to their skills, while others reported pressure linked to “sex for promotion” and a culture of heavy drinking and sexual bravado that alienated them. Ethnic minority service members have similarly spoken of being passed over for roles on weak grounds or told to be “patient” while promotions favoured others, leading some to resign in frustration.

It should be noted that some positive shifts have occurred. The Armed Forces now have a number of high-profile female and BAME role models. These include the appointment of the Army’s first female general, Major General Sharon Nesmith, in 2021, and senior figures in the Royal Navy such as Commodore Jude Terry. Such representation was virtually absent in 2010. The services have also introduced mentoring and leadership programmes aimed at underrepresented groups, which some junior officers credit with supporting their development.

However, these gains are often overshadowed by the continuing flow of troubling accounts about daily life for women and minorities in uniform. The next section, which focuses on harassment and abuse, explores these experiences in greater detail.

6. Bullying, harassment and everyday discrimination6.1 Scale of the problem

Multiple inquiries have concluded that bullying, harassment and discrimination (BHD) remain widespread in the Armed Forces, with women and minority personnel disproportionately affected. The landmark House of Commons Defence Committee inquiry in 2021, chaired by MP Sarah Atherton, gathered confidential evidence from more than 4,100 servicewomen and female veterans, an unprecedented sample. The findings were stark. 64% of female veterans and 58% of currently serving women reported experiencing bullying, harassment and or discrimination during their careers. The report further noted that in the Army, more than one in five servicewomen, or 21%, had either experienced or witnessed workplace sexual harassment in the twelve months to 2018. These figures underscore that such behaviour is not isolated, but systemic.

Atherton’s committee concluded that the Armed Forces were “failing to protect” female personnel and that much misconduct was being underreported due to fear of retaliation or a belief that complaints would be futile. Six out of ten women who had suffered abuse said they did not complain because of concerns about the impact on their career or because they believed nothing would be done.

For ethnic minority personnel, similar patterns emerge. While comprehensive surveys of BAME service members are rarer, partly due to smaller numbers, the MoD’s own attitude surveys and the Service Complaints Ombudsman have repeatedly recorded complaints of racist bullying and harassment, ranging from racist name-calling to more subtle forms of exclusion. In 2019, the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman, Nicola Williams, warned publicly that “incidents of racism in the armed forces are occurring with increasing and depressing frequency.” She made this statement in the context of rising complaints alleging racial bias or abuse.

It is notable that such warnings came almost two decades after the Armed Forces were said to have addressed overt racism following the 1998 Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, which prompted the MoD to examine racism within its ranks. The Ombudsman’s remarks suggest that racism was either resurging or that personnel were becoming more willing to report it.

One of the most prominent cases exposing the Army’s internal culture is that of Kerry-Ann Knight, referenced earlier. Knight, a Black British woman who joined the Army in 2008, rose to the rank of Bombardier in the Royal Artillery. In 2019, the Army featured her in a recruitment campaign under the slogan “Your Army Needs You,” presenting her as a role model.

Behind the scenes, however, Knight endured more than a decade of racist and sexist abuse. While stationed in Germany, she was subjected to racial slurs. She testified that male soldiers called her a “black bitch,” sometimes adding sexually explicit remarks that combined racism with sexual objectification. Knight also described serving alongside colleagues who claimed to support the Ku Klux Klan, Britain First and the English Defence League.

On one occasion, she returned to her accommodation to find that someone had graffitied large black penises across her furniture, a degrading act targeting both her race and gender. The abuse continued when she became an instructor of new recruits. Colleagues openly humiliated her, including the “watermelon” taunts described earlier, and made comments about placing her in a “hot box,” referencing torture scenes associated with slavery. Knight explained that “when you put race into play, as well as gender, for me it just felt like it was multiplied by ten,” describing the compounded impact of intersecting discrimination.

The Army’s response when Knight sought redress was equally revealing. According to reporting by The Guardian, she initially raised her concerns informally through her chain of command and later through formal Service Complaints, supported by extensive evidence including messages and audio recordings. Rather than taking decisive action against those responsible, her superiors began to treat her as the problem.

In 2021, after she filed a complaint relating to harassment at the training college, Knight was abruptly removed from her role working with recruits. The stated justification was concern that her “mental or emotional state” might deteriorate if she remained in a frontline teaching post. In effect, the Army sidelined the victim rather than the perpetrators. Knight told the press, “that’s when I realised the Army is institutionally racist. They would go above and beyond to discredit me, to protect the Army’s image, to pretend racism doesn’t exist.”

Feeling isolated and retaliated against, Knight ultimately left the Army. In 2022, she brought a case before an Employment Tribunal with support from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Centre for Military Justice. Facing the case in 2024, the Army agreed to settle, issuing an apology and a substantial financial settlement.

Emma Norton, Knight’s solicitor, commented in a statement published by the EHRC that “it is all dreadfully familiar and shows that, in the British Army, it’s worse to accuse someone of racism than it is to be racist.” That remark encapsulated a long standing concern that whistleblowers are punished while offenders often escape meaningful consequence. None of the soldiers who harassed Knight were publicly disciplined, and some were reportedly promoted.

Knight’s case is not unique. In 2016, another Black female soldier who had featured in an Army recruitment campaign successfully sued for racial harassment after colleagues nicknamed her with a racist slur and placed a banana on her bed. In 2023, the Army formally apologised to a Black female trooper in the Household Cavalry who had been promoted as a recruitment figure but later endured racist bullying. She also received a settlement after an internal inquiry confirmed the harassment. These cases suggest that public facing diversity campaigns were not matched by inclusive conditions on the ground.

6.2 Case study: Religious and racial harassment 

Another recent case involved Ebrima Bayo, a Black Muslim former soldier, and highlights the intersection of religious discrimination and race. Bayo served for more than eight years in the Army and was open about his faith, which made him a target of persistent mockery. According to Forces News, fellow soldiers ridiculed his prayer practices and religious clothing and made derogatory remarks about Islam. He reported these incidents through his chain of command but said that senior officers failed to intervene, effectively condoning Islamophobic behaviour.

Bayo attempted to resolve the matter internally for several years, first by raising concerns informally and later through a formal Service Complaint, which was initially rejected. Only after two years of appeals did the Army formally acknowledge his complaint. By that stage, Bayo had already decided to leave the military, stating that he felt “let down” and had “no faith in the military” as an institution.

With support from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Bayo pursued legal action against the Ministry of Defence. The case was settled in mid 2023 for an undisclosed sum, accompanied by an official admission that he had been wronged.

Reflecting on the process, Bayo criticised the Army’s “reluctance to acknowledge” discrimination and the effort required to secure accountability. He warned that such experiences would deter others from joining the Armed Forces. His case underscores religious discrimination as a persistent but underexamined dimension of the military’s diversity challenge, with particular implications for Muslim, Sikh and Hindu service members.

6.3 Case study: Royal Navy submarines and the “rape list”

Some of the most disturbing recent revelations emerged from the Royal Navy Submarine Service, often regarded as an elite and highly insular branch. In late 2022, accounts of extreme misogyny came to light when Lieutenant Sophie Brook and other female submariners spoke publicly.

In an interview with Sky News, Brook described widespread sexual harassment and abuse during her service on the United Kingdom’s nuclear submarines, stating that “there is sexual assault, sexual harassment, and misogyny widespread within the Submarine Service.” Among the most alarming allegations was the existence of a so called “crush depth rape list,” in which male submariners reportedly ranked female crew members in the order they would rape them in the event of a catastrophic emergency.

Women also reported regular unwanted physical contact, degrading remarks and a culture of intimidation. Brook described hostility from the moment she joined the Submarine Service and a lack of support when she attempted to report incidents. She explained that the environment was so toxic that it drove her, and others, to leave the Navy, despite her being on track to potentially become the first woman to command a submarine.

These allegations prompted an immediate response from senior leadership. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key, publicly apologised and ordered a special investigation into what he described as “abhorrent” misconduct. A non statutory inquiry was conducted in 2023.

By the end of that year, Admiral Key stated that the findings confirmed a pattern of “unacceptable behaviours” and issued personal apologies to the women affected. Disciplinary action was promised. However, by April 2024, Brook reported that she was still waiting for any update and felt she had been left “in limbo” after cooperating with the inquiry and the military police. She described the lack of resolution as a “second injury” following the original trauma.

The submarine scandal is illustrative for several reasons. It occurred in a branch that had only recently been opened to women, suggesting that closed subcultures may be especially resistant to change. It also demonstrates how extreme behaviour can go unchecked within insular military environments. The existence of a rape list would be unthinkable in most civilian workplaces and points to a deeply toxic culture. The corroboration of these allegations by multiple women indicates a broader structural problem rather than an isolated case.

The Navy has since announced reforms within the Submarine Service, including mandatory bystander training and improved reporting mechanisms on board vessels. Trust, however, will take time to rebuild. Women currently make up around one per cent of submarine crews, largely confined to a small number of officers, and recruitment of new female submariners is likely to have been set back by these revelations.

6.4 Everyday harassment and microaggressions 

Not all discrimination takes such extreme forms, but lower level slights can accumulate over time and drive people out. Female personnel frequently cite practical issues such as ill fitting uniforms, body armour designed for male bodies, or inadequate sanitary provisions in the field, all of which reinforce a sense of exclusion. The 2021 Defence Committee inquiry noted that body armour suitable for female physiology had only recently been introduced and that many women still struggled to access appropriately sized equipment.

Ethnic minority service members have similarly described routine microaggressions, including derogatory jokes about food, accents, or cultural background, which subtly mark individuals as outsiders even in the absence of overt abuse. Such behaviour is often minimised as banter or dismissed as harmless, yet its cumulative impact can be significant

These daily indignities contribute to what one former Army officer described as “death by a thousand cuts,” in which individually minor incidents cumulatively erode morale. In many cases, perpetrators may view such behaviour as harmless banter. For those on the receiving end, however, it reinforces the message that they do not fully belong.

This is why many advocates stress the need for cultural change at the most local levels, not only policy reform from senior leadership. The MoD has introduced initiatives such as appointing respected non commissioned officers as culture champions and encouraging personnel to challenge inappropriate behaviour. Nevertheless, as the cases outlined above demonstrate, significant pockets of toxic conduct persist, and those targeted by it often bear the long term career consequences.

7. Discipline and justice: Complaints, courts and outcomes

A critical aspect of this issue is how the Armed Forces handle allegations of discrimination or abuse. In theory, a robust internal justice system and complaints mechanism should deter misconduct and provide redress to victims. In practice, both the Service Complaints system and the Service Justice System have been heavily criticised for failing personnel from minority groups, and for failing many complainants regardless of background.

7.1 Complaint system failures 

When regular service members face bullying or discrimination, their primary avenue is to file a formal Service Complaint through their chain of command, with oversight by the Service Complaints Ombudsman. However, as multiple reports have documented, very few choose to do so, and those who do often endure lengthy and frustrating processes.

The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Surveys consistently show that a large proportion of personnel experiencing bullying or harassment do not report it. Wigston’s 2019 review found that only 6% of those who were subject to bullying, harassment or discrimination had made a formal complaint. The review set out reasons for staying silent that were telling. Sixty three per cent did not believe anything would be done, 50% feared a negative impact on their career, and around a third did not trust the process or disliked the idea of making a fuss. These fears are reflected in many testimonies that careers can stall after someone is labelled a “complainer”, a perception that clearly persists.

Even when complaints are filed, the effectiveness and efficiency of the system have been questioned. A Forces News article cited the House of Commons Defence Committee’s report, Fairness Without Fear (2019), which concluded that the complaints system was “not fit for purpose”, citing unacceptably slow handling and a culture that “discouraged serving personnel from coming forward.” By the MoD’s own targets, 90% of complaints should be resolved within 24 weeks, but in practice that target has never been met. It often takes over a year, or multiple years, to reach a conclusion, especially if appeals are involved.

For example, in Ebrima Bayo’s case, his initial complaint was rejected and only upheld on appeal after two years. Many others simply give up or leave the service before their case is resolved. A RUSI commentary, citing the Ombudsman’s 2020 annual report, noted that some recommendations to improve the system had remained unimplemented for years, and that until the backlog and delays were addressed, the system could not be considered “efficient, effective or fair.”

Another serious issue is potential command interference or pressure. Forces News reported that the Defence Committee in 2019 heard evidence of personnel being pressured to withdraw complaints, although it noted that an “absence of proper records” made this difficult to quantify. Anecdotal reports nevertheless persist of commanding officers urging complainants to “think of your career” or to resolve matters quietly rather than escalate. In a rigid hierarchy, such pressure is hard to resist. The “negative culture” around complaints, as MPs described it, means that raising a grievance is often seen as disloyal or weak, contrary to the military ethos of resilience.

Lieutenant Colonel Diane Allen said there is an “unwritten rule that you don’t complain in the military”, a sentiment many serving personnel echo. All of this contributes to severe underreporting of valid grievances. For instance, the 2018 Armed Forces survey found that one in ten personnel had been subject to bullying or harassment in the prior year, yet 93% did not make a formal complaint.

Women and BAME personnel who do file complaints are, as noted, overrepresented in the system relative to their numbers. According to Personnel Today, in 2018, 23% of complaints were from female personnel even though women were only around 11% of the Forces. Similarly, 13% of complaints came from BAME personnel who made up about 7% of overall strength. This disproportion suggests these groups face more problems, or feel more compelled to use the system, but it does not mean they receive satisfactory outcomes.

In fact, complaints from women and minorities often relate directly to discrimination. The same source noted that nearly 43% of women’s complaints and 39% of BAME complaints concerned bullying, harassment or discrimination, significantly higher than the rate of such allegations in complaints from white males.

The Ombudsman has repeatedly pointed out this overrepresentation as a red flag that the underlying causes need addressing. However, the MoD was slow to commission any study into why women and BAME service members were much more likely to complain. The Defence Committee criticised Ministers in 2019 for not being sufficiently curious or proactive about these disproportionately high complaint rates.

In response to this criticism, the MoD rolled out some improvements. According to The Guardian, after 2021 it announced that any complaint of a sexual nature must be handled outside the immediate unit chain of command, using independent investigators from a central pool. This followed the Atherton inquiry’s findings that unit commanders sometimes dismissed serious sexual harassment cases.

In late 2022, a new Defence Serious Crime Unit (DSCU) was established, bringing together service police to investigate serious offences, including sexual assault, more independently from the normal military hierarchy. The MoD also accepted the need for more transparency and support in the complaints process. Complainants are now meant to receive regular updates, and anonymous reporting tools have been introduced, including an “ask a whistleblower” helpline.

Time will tell whether these measures improve trust. Early indications from 2022 to 2023 were that complaint numbers rose, perhaps a sign that more people were willing to come forward if they believed the process might be fairer. Still, the fundamental cultural barrier, fear of career damage, remains strong and was reiterated by witnesses in the most recent 2023 hearings on the Armed Forces Bill.

7.2 Military justice and accountability

Beyond the internal complaints system, some incidents fall into the category of criminal offences under the Armed Forces Act, which largely mirrors civilian criminal law. Here too, the record has been problematic, particularly for cases involving racism or sexual assault.

For racial discrimination, very few cases reach a court martial. A Guardian investigation in 2020 found that in the preceding five years the Service Police across all three services opened 35 investigations into alleged racially aggravated offences. Only 13 were referred for possible prosecution and just six resulted in a guilty verdict at court martial. In other words, fewer than one in five formal racism allegations ended in any punishment.

The MoD acknowledged the number of cases was “already low” to begin with, arguably a sign that many incidents are not being formally investigated at all. Campaigners argue this reflects both underreporting and a tendency to deal with racism administratively, or to ignore it, rather than treat it as a crime. Some incidents that would likely be classed as hate crimes in civilian life, such as vandalising a colleague’s property with racist graffiti or violent “pranks” with clear racist intent, have been handled through informal discipline or with no apparent sanction.

For the cases that did reach court martial, outcomes suggest weak evidence collection, reluctance of military panels to convict peers, or both. The low conviction rate led equality advocates to accuse the Forces of “failing black and Asian service personnel” by not taking racism seriously.

The shortcomings of the Service Justice System are most glaring in cases involving sexual offences. It has been widely documented that conviction rates for rape and sexual assault are far lower in military courts than in civilian courts. The Guardian cited Atherton’s 2021 inquiry and official data showing that the court martial conviction rate for rape from 2015 to 2020 averaged around 16%, compared with 34% in Crown Courts in England and Wales.

Another analysis found that between 2019 and 2021, the Armed Forces prosecuted 53 rape charges at courts martial and only 11 resulted in guilty findings, a 20.8% conviction rate, meaning roughly four in five accused were acquitted. For context, in the civilian system the conviction rate for rape is often cited as roughly 60% of charges that go to trial, although that is from a much smaller fraction of reported cases that reach court. The disparity led the Defence Committee to describe military justice outcomes as “abysmal” and a key driver of victims’ lack of confidence.

One high profile example involved an RAF Corporal who was sexually assaulted by a colleague while she slept. A court martial acquitted the accused in 2018, but the victim later pursued a civil Employment Tribunal, which in 2020 found she had been sexually harassed and awarded compensation. The situation, in which a military court found no criminal liability while a civil tribunal found misconduct on the balance of probabilities, reinforced the perception that military courts are biased or insufficiently competent in handling sexual offences. It also fuelled arguments that such cases should be removed from the military system altogether.

In response, Judge Shaun Lyons, a retired senior judge commissioned to review the Service Justice System, recommended in 2018 that rape and sexual assault cases involving service members in the UK should be handled by civilian authorities by default, except where the Attorney General permitted court martial jurisdiction. This would reverse a 2006 change that extended military jurisdiction over such crimes even within the UK.

Lyons argued that since 71% of Service Police investigations of sexual crime related to incidents in the UK rather than on deployment, there was no practical reason not to let civilian police handle them. He suggested victims might receive more justice through civilian processes.

The MoD initially resisted this reform. In its 2021 response to the Women in the Armed Forces report, the government refused to cede jurisdiction, arguing that a tri-service Serious Crime Unit and improved training for military prosecutors could address the problem. Sarah Atherton and others were “disappointed” at this refusal and described it as a missed opportunity.

The debate continued during the Armed Forces Bill 2021. The House of Lords passed an amendment to mandate civilian trials for rape, but the government then used its majority in the Commons to overturn it. Atherton’s report highlighted that 60% of female personnel who experienced sexual harassment or worse did not report it at all.

In such a climate, perpetrators may assume they can act with impunity. The Submarine Service “rape list” became public not through internal reporting but only when a whistleblower went to the media, suggesting that none of the women affected felt safe using the system at the time.

8. Lack of diversity in military justice roles 

Another important facet to consider is who administers justice within the military. Historically, court martial boards, the military equivalent of juries, have been composed overwhelmingly of men in senior roles. The structure and culture of the military justice system has long been described as operating with a “boys’ club” approach, which can inhibit effective investigation and accountability.

This imbalance is partly a function of representation. Because women make up a smaller proportion of the Armed Forces, they have historically been less likely to be selected at random to serve on court martial boards. As a result, panels have often consisted entirely of older male officers. This can shape how evidence is interpreted, particularly in gendered cases, where certain behaviours may not be recognised as harassment or abuse in the same way they might be by a more diverse panel.

In an effort to address this, legislative changes came into force on 1 January 2023 to increase female representation on court martial boards. The new rules require that at least one woman be included on a service board where reasonably practicable. At the same time, the minimum rank requirement for board members was lowered to OR7, widening the pool of eligible personnel and introducing a greater diversity of experience and perspective.

Early data suggest some progress. A 2025 parliamentary report found that of all cases with a service board completed in the first two years after the legislation came into force, 25.5% included at least two women on the board. This marks a positive shift in the composition of military justice panels. However, representation alone does not resolve deeper structural issues that continue to affect fairness and accountability.

There have therefore been broader calls to reform the Service Justice System itself, particularly in its handling of serious criminal offences. Liberty Human Rights has argued that such cases should be dealt with through the civilian justice system. This recommendation reflects the stark disparity in outcomes for victims of sexual violence. In 2017, only two of the 48 rape cases that proceeded to court martial resulted in a conviction.

Liberty has further recommended placing the service police under the oversight of an independent supervisory body and ensuring that all serious offences committed in the UK are investigated by civilian police. These proposals mirror concerns raised elsewhere in this report about the ability of closed military systems to investigate themselves impartially.

In summary, the military justice and complaints systems have often failed those who experience discrimination. Slow administrative processes can leave victims exhausted and disillusioned, while low conviction rates mean many perpetrators face little or no accountability. Over time, this has eroded confidence among women and minority personnel that the system will deliver justice. As trust diminishes, reporting declines, allowing misconduct to continue unchecked and further undermining institutional credibility. Breaking this cycle is essential if the Armed Forces are to eliminate discriminatory abuse and restore confidence in their ability to police themselves.

9. Major inquiries and reforms: what has been done

Over the past decade and a half, a series of watchdog, parliamentary and internal reviews have forced the Ministry of Defence to confront persistent problems of discrimination within the Armed Forces. While these inquiries have generated recommendations and prompted reform efforts, their effectiveness has varied. Some of the most significant interventions are outlined below.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) involvement
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has intervened in several high profile cases, including those of Kerry-Ann Knight and Ebrima Bayo, placing external pressure on the MoD through legal support and public scrutiny. In 2019, following a succession of racial harassment cases, the EHRC threatened to launch a formal investigation into the Armed Forces’ treatment of BAME personnel. This reportedly prompted the MoD to develop an internal Race Action Plan in 2020. Although the plan has not been formally published, leaked versions reported in the media suggested commitments to improving recruitment, retention and inclusion of ethnic minority personnel.

Service complaints Ombudsman reports
Since its establishment in 2016, the Service Complaints Ombudsman has produced some of the clearest evidence of systemic shortcomings in how grievances are handled. Nicola Williams, Ombudsman until 2020, repeatedly highlighted the overrepresentation of women and BAME personnel in the complaints system, approximately double their share of the Armed Forces overall. In her final reports, she warned that the MoD was failing to implement recommendations with sufficient urgency.

At one point, the Ombudsman’s office halted the issuance of new recommendations until the MoD addressed a backlog of previously accepted reforms. Williams’ successor, Mariette Hughes, acknowledged some improvements, including modest reductions in complaint handling times and greater procedural independence following changes introduced in 2022, such as routing complaints to specialist teams. However, Hughes has continued to express concern that cases involving harassment, discrimination and bullying still take far too long to resolve. The Ombudsman’s persistence has been central to keeping these issues on the parliamentary agenda and providing evidence for legislative scrutiny.

House of Commons Defence Committee inquiries
The Defence Committee has repeatedly criticised failures in the military complaints system, but its 2021 inquiry into women’s experiences marked a significant turning point. Led by MP Sarah Atherton, the report, Protecting Those Who Protect Us: Women in the Armed Forces from Recruitment to Civilian Life, provided the first parliamentary platform devoted entirely to servicewomen’s experiences.

The Committee made more than 40 recommendations, including transferring serious sexual offences to civilian courts, establishing independent reporting mechanisms for sexual offences, and strengthening employment protections for women. The MoD accepted several recommendations, such as creating independent investigation and adjudication units outside the chain of command for sexual complaints. Despite these limitations, the inquiry is widely regarded as a moment when the MoD publicly acknowledged that conditions for many servicewomen were “woefully inadequate”.

Internal MoD reviews and directives
Internal reviews have also driven reform efforts. The Wigston Review into inappropriate behaviours, triggered a number of structural changes. These included the creation of the Defence Authority for People (Service Complaints and Conduct), intended to oversee how each Service addresses unacceptable behaviour. The MoD also introduced a 24 hour bullying and harassment helpline and launched a biennial harassment survey to anonymously assess prevalence, with the first survey conducted in 2021. Senior leadership has increasingly emphasised diversity and inclusion in public messaging. In 2020, the Army launched the “This Is Belonging” campaign, intended to reinforce the idea that all personnel should feel valued regardless of background. Critics argue, however, that messaging alone will not deliver change without consistent enforcement and accountability.

Legal and policy changes
The MoD has amended some policies that previously disadvantaged women and personnel with caring responsibilities. In 2014, maternity leave provisions were updated to better support servicewomen. The Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2019 further allowed personnel to request part time service or limited geographical stability. While these changes are not explicitly framed as anti discrimination measures, they address structural barriers that disproportionately affect women in the Armed Forces and may contribute indirectly to improved retention. Despite these reforms, specialist organisations continue to warn that progress remains fragile. The Centre for Military Justice, founded in 2019 by lawyers and former servicewomen, has argued that more fundamental reform is required. Among its recommendations is making the findings of the Service Complaints Ombudsman binding, reflecting the restricted legal rights service personnel have compared with civilians. To date, the MoD has not adopted this proposal, maintaining that existing mechanisms are sufficient.

10. Persistent barriers: Culture and structure

Despite recent commitments to improve equality and inclusion, many long standing barriers remain across the UK Armed Forces. Progress is visible in areas such as recruitment diversity and leadership awareness, but underlying culture and internal systems continue to make it difficult for many personnel to raise concerns or secure fair outcomes.

Cultural resistance and informal norms
Several independent reviews have identified a persistent gap between official policy and everyday culture within the Armed Forces. Equality measures are still viewed by some personnel as a “tick box exercise” rather than as central to military professionalism. This perception contributes to a reluctance to challenge inappropriate behaviour or to take complaints seriously.

A negative culture surrounding complaints remains entrenched. Many service members continue to internalise the idea that raising concerns is worse than the original offence. Younger personnel are often led by senior officers whose attitudes were shaped by earlier eras of service, reinforcing norms that prioritise cohesion and loyalty over accountability.

Fear of reprisals or career impact
Fear of career damage remains one of the most significant barriers to reporting discrimination or abuse. Recent cases involving Knight, Bayo and Brook illustrate how those who spoke out felt they suffered reprisals. Knight was removed from her role and faced efforts to discredit her. Bayo’s complaint was initially rejected and only acknowledged after prolonged appeals. Brook has described feeling sidelined after whistleblowing.

Even where the MoD later issues apologies or pays compensation, the damage to confidence, reputation and career prospects has often already been done. These outcomes have a wider chilling effect, as other personnel observe the consequences and internalise the risks of speaking up. Although reforms removing unit commanders from certain complaints processes are intended to address this problem, their impact on trust in the system remains uncertain.

Lack of diverse leadership
Women and BAME personnel remain significantly underrepresented in senior leadership roles. As of 2025, women hold around 9.3% of senior officer positions. Ethnic minority representation is even lower at the top, with only two senior officers from non-white backgrounds recorded in 2023 to 2024.

This imbalance points to structural barriers in access to leadership, mentorship and career progression for underrepresented groups. While the overall composition of the Armed Forces is slowly becoming more diverse, representation at senior levels lags far behind and will take time to reflect these changes.

Gaps in accountability and transparency
For many years, the Armed Forces handled complaints and disciplinary matters largely behind closed doors, with limited external scrutiny. Institutional reputation was often prioritised over transparency and accountability. The 2012 killing of Kenyan civilian Agnes Wanjiru illustrates this dynamic. The British soldier responsible reportedly confessed internally, yet the regiment failed to report the crime, effectively suppressing accountability. This mindset has also shaped responses to discrimination complaints, where victims have been discouraged from speaking out to avoid reputational damage. While external oversight has increased in recent years, concerns remain about how investigations are conducted and how long they take. Cases such as Sophie Brook’s, where an inquiry concluded but no information was released for months, reinforce perceptions that outcomes are opaque and accountability inconsistent. Unlike many civilian sectors, the Armed Forces do not routinely publish anonymised data on disciplinary action related to bullying or discrimination. This makes it difficult to assess whether misconduct is being addressed consistently or whether reforms are having a measurable effect.

Legal exemptions
Another structural issue lies in the Armed Forces’ partial exemption from certain employment laws. For example, service personnel remain exempt from aspects of equality legislation relating to age and disability where decisions are justified on grounds of combat effectiveness. Service members are also excluded from ordinary unfair dismissal protections, as they are not classified as employees under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

While there are operational reasons for limiting standard employment litigation in a military context, these exemptions leave service personnel with fewer legal avenues than civilian workers. This can foster a perception that rights within the Forces are weaker, even where race and sex discrimination are formally prohibited. The broader legal environment shapes how personnel understand and exercise their rights in practice.

Assessing the effectiveness of reforms
Overall, the MoD has often appeared reactive rather than proactive in addressing discrimination. Many reforms have followed public scandal or sustained external pressure. The Wigston Review was commissioned after media reporting on serious misconduct, while the Atherton inquiry followed years of servicewomen and veterans publicly sharing their experiences.

This pattern of responding to crises rather than preventing them suggests that deeper cultural change remains uneven. While many reforms are significant and necessary, without sustained and proactive leadership they risk losing momentum once public attention shifts elsewhere.

11. Conclusion

Fifteen years on from the formal equality reforms of 2010, the British Armed Forces have become more diverse and more aware of inequality, yet they continue to grapple with entrenched racial and gender discrimination.

Since 2010, the Armed Forces have opened all roles to women, increased recruitment of minority personnel, and implemented policies intended to promote inclusion. Senior leadership now regularly expresses a commitment to diversity, and structures such as the Service Complaints Ombudsman and the Defence Diversity and Inclusion strategy exist where they did not previously. These are meaningful developments. However, the evidence examined in this report, from official data to personal testimony, shows that significant inequality and injustice persist beneath the surface.

Discrimination affects every stage of service. During recruitment, women and BAME candidates may encounter prejudice or controversy. Once in service, many experience harassment, bias in promotion, or hostile working environments. Even when complaints are made, serious allegations are not always addressed appropriately or transparently.

Case studies involving Kerry-Ann Knight, Ebrima Bayo, Wendy Williams and Sophie Brook put human faces on these systemic failures. In each case, dedicated service personnel were forced to seek external remedies when internal systems failed to protect them from racism, sexism or abuse. Their experiences, corroborated by parliamentary inquiries and investigative reporting, point to patterns of behaviour that cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents, but instead reflect deeper cultural and structural flaws.

Have the MoD’s reforms been effective? To date, they have achieved only partial success. While reforms have improved policy frameworks and raised awareness, equality is not yet consistently experienced in practice. Positive developments include increased recruitment of women and minority personnel, improved support for servicewomen through measures such as maternity and flexible service policies, and some visible responses to misconduct, including the Navy’s handling of the submarine scandal in 2023. Despite this, trust and confidence in the system remain low. Internal surveys indicate that many women and BAME personnel have limited faith in the complaints process. The 2021 inquiry found that two thirds of female respondents had experienced bullying, harassment or discrimination during service. These findings suggest that, despite progress, inequality continues to shape the everyday experiences of many personnel.

Structural barriers remain entrenched. Senior leadership is still demographically homogeneous, and the military justice system lacks sufficient transparency. Cultural change, as Defence officials themselves have acknowledged, is generational work. Accelerating that change may require stronger external oversight, consistent accountability for perpetrators, and clearer responsibility for commanders in shaping the culture of their units. Proposals such as an Armed Forces Diversity and Inclusion Commissioner may need to be reconsidered if existing mechanisms continue to fall short.

For an institution built on principles of honour, courage and integrity, eliminating discrimination is not only a matter of legal compliance but of living up to its own values. Many service personnel, including the majority who do not engage in abusive behaviour, support meaningful reform, recognising that cohesion and operational effectiveness depend on fair treatment.

As this report has shown, a gap remains between the Armed Forces’ stated commitment to equality and the lived reality of too many of its members. While progress has been made, the legacy of an insular culture continues to shape outcomes. If the British Armed Forces are to be a genuine force for good, both at home and abroad, they must intensify efforts to confront discriminatory attitudes and practices. This requires robust policies, meaningful support for whistleblowers, empowerment of victims, and full accountability for perpetrators and, where relevant, their commanders.

Only through sustained and comprehensive action can the reforms of the past decade translate into a lived experience of equality for all who serve, regardless of gender or race.