UK special forces (UKSF) personnel could face prosecution after evidence found following enquiries by the SAS Inquiry, suggesting serious offences may have been committed in Afghanistan, was handed to the military police.

The evidence came to light in court proceedings on Monday and is the first time the inquiry has publicly acknowledged that its findings could lead to criminal prosecutions.

The referral – made by UKSF earlier this year – was required under the Armed Forces Act, which defines Schedule 2 serious offences as including murder and manslaughter.

It relates to a number of detention operations carried out by British personnel between 2010 and 2013.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) found the evidence earlier this year, following investigation by the SAS Inquiry, and then UKSF referred it to the military police’s Defence Serious Crime Unit (DSCU), a specialist unit set up in 2022 to deal with the most serious crimes.

Court documents obtained by the BBC suggest that the DSCU has undertaken a scoping exercise of the evidence, but the unit has paused any criminal investigations until the inquiry has been concluded.

Separately, the MoD told the BBC it was deemed inappropriate for criminal investigations to be undertaken while the inquiry was still ongoing.

The Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan is examining allegations that the British Army’s Special Air Service (SAS) unlawfully killed people during detention operations in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2013, and that senior officials sought to cover up the true circumstances of the killings.

BBC Panorama has been investigating allegations the SAS executed handcuffed civilians and children, for more than eight years. The public inquiry was established in 2022 in the wake of Panorama’s revelations.

The DSCU referral came to light during a High Court hearing brought by a witness to the inquiry.

The witness, a senior British military officer who served in Afghanistan, has won permission to have the inquiry judicially reviewed after military witnesses’ legal teams were excluded from closed-door evidence hearings with whistleblowers.

Much of the public inquiry’s evidence is being heard in secret.

Lawyers for the senior officer argued the process was unfair and the officer should have an opportunity to question the whistleblowers, either in person or through his lawyers, regarding any allegations made against him.

The inquiry’s lawyers said it “must be able to obtain highly sensitive information” from people who may be concerned about giving evidence.

They said protected witnesses had raised fears of “grievous consequences by UKSF” if their identities were revealed.

Do you have information about this story that you want to share?

Get in touch using SecureDrop, a highly anonymous and secure way of whistleblowing to the BBC which uses the Tor network. Or use the Signal messaging app, an end-to-end encrypted message service designed to protect your data.

Note: The SecureDrop link will only work in a Tor browser. For information on keeping secure and anonymous, here’s some advice on how to use SecureDrop.