What did you really do in the war, Dad?

Dr Huw Evans
In this article, Dr Huw Evans argues it should be an offence for a person to display an award given in recognition for valour, such as a medal or insignia, with intent to deceive. The term ‘stolen valour’ has become used to encapsulate this behaviour.
After the annual Remembrance commemorations there are recurring complaints of stolen valour conduct by some participants. On any reasonable basis, an act of stolen valour is morally repugnant. But, on its own, it does not currently amount to an offence.
And just because something is morally objectionable, it does not automatically follow that it should be an offence. A threshold must first be crossed.
Yet acts of stolen valour were previously criminalised in relation to the army (Army Act 1955, section 197) and air force (Air Force Act 1955, section 197) but not (seemingly, bizarrely) the navy. Both were repealed by the Armed Forces Act 2006.
The case of former Northamptonshire Police Chief Constable Nick Adderley shows the gap in the current law. He has been charged with offences of fraud and misconduct in public office. In part they relate, allegedly, to misrepresenting his military service by falsely claiming he had served in the 1982 Falklands War and was thus entitled to wear associated service medals.
The alleged stolen valour aspect itself does not amount to an offence but is supplementary to other things which, when taken together, can amount to an offence.
With fraud by false representation, it must be linked to trying to obtain a financial advantage. In this case the alleged stolen valour conduct is linked to obtaining employment with the police, a financial advantage.
As to misconduct in public office, as chief constable he held public office and so the alleged stolen valour conduct can amount to misconduct in that office.
Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill
There was an attempt to fill the current gap in the law. The Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill was introduced as a private members’ bill in 2016 and sought to establish an offence for a person to wear an award for valour when not entitled to do so and done with intent to deceive.
The bill received UK Government and cross-party support but failed to become law after the dissolution of parliament in May 2017, as the general election was called.
At the time the bill was also considered by the House of Commons Defence Committee. The committee heard evidence from a range of interested parties and concluded:
‘…that the unauthorised and deceitful use of military decorations and medals is a harm that is worthy of specific criminal prohibition…
‘Such behaviour is not only insulting to the rightful recipients of these awards, but also damages the integrity of the military honours system and the bond of trust and respect between the public and the Armed Forces.’
The committee was also critical of the decision to repeal the previous law criminalising stolen valour conduct for the army and air force. Quite obviously, in the committee’s mind, the threshold justifying the creation of an offence had been crossed.
On that theme, the committee also noted that ‘criminalisation… is commonplace in many other jurisdictions, [and] that a lack of similar protection in the United Kingdom can be viewed as exceptional’.
Despite that cross-party and (it would seem) public support, the draft legislation has not been reintroduced.
Unauthorised use of military uniform
Although the law does not criminalise stolen valour conduct for awards such as medals or insignia, unauthorised use of a military uniform is an offence under the Uniforms Act 1894. The case of Jonathan Carley from North Wales illustrates this position. Following a Remembrance event in Llandudno on 9 November 2025 he was arrested and charged with unauthorised use of a military uniform; the allegation is that he wore the uniform of a high-ranking navy officer without permission.
Note, however, that the 1894 Act is narrow in its application. It deals with the unauthorised wearing of uniforms, not medals or insignia. Neither does it cover misrepresentation about awards.
Overview and next steps
Stolen valour conduct is morally unacceptable. The House of Commons Defence Committee considered this behaviour crossed a threshold and should be criminalised; it insults genuine recipients of those awards and their memory, and undermines the integrity of military honours. Judging by the outcry these cases generate, the committee’s view is probably shared by the public.
There is a gap in the law that needs to be filled. The previous bill started as a private members’ bill but gained cross-party support and, but for a general election, would have become law. There should be a UK Government commitment to legislation. That legislation is not going to be controversial and is unlikely to take up too much Parliamentary time.
But before the reintroduction of draft legislation, there is a need for a review about whether simple replication of the previous bill is enough. For example, as well as awards, stolen valour conduct could be extended to apply to the wearing of uniforms with intent to deceive. The current legislation about uniforms, and which dates from 1894, refers to ‘unauthorised use’. It would make sense to have stolen valour law capturing all potential conduct. The ball is now in the UK Government’s court.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.


KCIII got a few titles he didnt earn apart from being born into the right household. Same for Andy. Same for other royals.
Does this apply to King Carlo, and his rows of unearned Medals?
I’m guessing that the legislation would focus on medals etc ‘awarded’ rather than ‘earned’ to avoid opening a can of worms. I.e. doubtless many medals have been earned but nor awarded, and a good few medals awarded have been unearned. If the legislation referred to medals earned it would herald long arguments in the courts about whether a medals had been earned, plus further appeals if additional evidence came to light subsequently. If the focus of the legislation is on medals awarded it’s simply based on the official record; arguments about the merits or otherwise of the award can be… Read more »
So its fine to get medals for slaughtering people but not for pretending to be a slaughterer? I thought it was very ironic that a man who gets rigged up in fancy dress is demonised and criminalised more than politicians who went to war on a fake dossier about WMD. The UK is truly f***** up.
No one gets a medal for “slaughtering people”, they get medals for their service to the country and/or individual acts of bravery. Putting it in those terms is, at best, crass. Yes, people die in war, but medals are not awarded for “slaughter”.
A lot of people here rewrite history in their own image on this issue and many others.
What people will do for a chunk of worthless metal tied to a chunk of colourful string. I might be the odd one out here, but I think medals have had their day regardless. It’s not like they give a +10% Charisma buff. They are a relic of a by-gone era and now for the most part, symbolize war crimes. (Given the atrocities committed in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan and Iraq… among many others by UK forces). For me, the medals are inconsequential. What is important, is that wearing a military uniform and masquerading as military in an attempt to defraud…… Read more »
In most instances the string and the metal signifies extraordinary service and bravery that has protected us and preserved our freedom, especially the WWII vintage.
Can it be made an offence for senior politicians to disguise themselves in various ‘heroic’ uniforms to look like brave and honest working people…