Derek Bentley remains one of the most controversial figures in the history of British criminal justice and capital punishment. Convicted of the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles following a failed warehouse burglary in Croydon on 2 November 1952, Bentley was sentenced to death and hanged at Wandsworth Prison on 28 January 1953, despite the fact that he neither fired the fatal shot nor possessed the gun used to kill the officer.

The prosecution’s case centred on Bentley’s alleged words, “Let him have it, Chris,” spoken to his 16-year-old companion, Christopher Craig, who was armed with a revolver. Whether those words meant “shoot him” or “hand over the gun” has remained one of the most debated questions in British legal history and lay at the heart of one of the country’s most controversial murder convictions.

Bentley was illiterate, suffered from epilepsy following a wartime head injury and was widely regarded as having a mental age of around eleven years. Although Christopher Craig admitted firing the fatal shots, he could not legally be sentenced to death because he was only sixteen years old. Bentley, aged nineteen, therefore became the only one of the two who could receive the death penalty.

Following forty-five years of campaigning by his father, his sister Iris Bentley and, after Iris’s death, her daughter Maria Bentley Dingwall, the Court of Appeal ruled on 30 July 1998 that Derek Bentley’s conviction was unsafe, bringing to an end one of the longest campaigns to overturn a criminal conviction in British legal history.

This article examines the crime, the trial, the controversial evidence against Bentley, the meaning of the famous words “Let him have it, Chris”, the decision not to reprieve him, and why his case continues to be regarded as one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern British legal history.

Quick Facts

Full name	Derek William Bentley
Born	30 June 1933
Executed	28 January 1953
Age at execution	19
Place of execution	Wandsworth Prison, London
Victim	Police Constable Sidney Miles
Actual shooter	Christopher Craig
Most famous phrase	“Let him have it, Chris”
Conviction quashed	30 July 1998 by the Court of Appeal

Why is the Derek Bentley case still important?

More than seventy years after his execution, Derek Bentley’s case continues to be studied by lawyers, historians and students of British criminal justice. It raised fundamental questions about joint enterprise, the interpretation of spoken evidence, criminal responsibility, mental capacity and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy.

For many people, the case came to symbolise the potential for irreversible miscarriages of justice when capital punishment was still available in Britain. The eventual decision by the Court of Appeal in 1998 to quash Bentley’s conviction reinforced its place as one of the defining legal cases of the twentieth century.

The Crime and Arrest

On Sunday 2 November 1952, nineteen-year-old Derek Bentley went out with his friend, Christopher Craig, who was just sixteen years old, intending to commit a burglary. Bentley was carrying a knife and a knuckle-duster that Craig had recently given him. Craig also carried a knife but, more significantly, was armed with a .455 Eley revolver. As Craig habitually carried a gun, it is reasonable to suppose that Bentley knew he was armed.

The pair first attempted to burgle two other properties but were unsuccessful. They eventually selected a warehouse belonging to Parker & Barlow in Croydon, Surrey. As they climbed onto the roof, they were seen by a young girl who lived opposite. Her mother immediately telephoned the police, and a patrol car carrying Detective Constable Fairfax and a uniformed police constable arrived within minutes.

When the officers reached the warehouse, Craig and Bentley attempted to flee across the roof. Detective Constable Fairfax quickly caught hold of Bentley and detained him. I deliberately use the word “detained” rather than “arrested”, because whether Bentley had actually been placed under arrest at this stage later became one of the important issues in the case.

Craig then decided to shoot his way out. He fired at Fairfax, wounding him in the shoulder. During the shooting, Bentley is alleged to have spoken the words that would become famous throughout British legal history:

“Let him have it, Chris.”

Whether those words were ever spoken, and if they were, what Bentley intended them to mean, became one of the central questions at his trial and remains controversial to this day.

Despite Fairfax having been wounded, Bentley made no attempt to escape. Instead, he remained beside the injured detective for approximately thirty minutes without being physically restrained. This is difficult to reconcile with the picture of Bentley as a violent young criminal determined to evade capture, as he could probably have overpowered the wounded and unarmed officer had he wished to do so.

Within minutes, additional police officers arrived, several of them armed. Craig continued firing at anyone who appeared on the roof. As Police Constable Sidney Miles emerged through the roof access, he was shot in the head and died almost instantly.

Craig eventually exhausted his ammunition and attempted to escape by throwing himself from the roof. He landed on the roof of a greenhouse approximately thirty feet below, breaking his back in the fall before being taken into custody.

Both Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley were subsequently charged with the murder of PC Sidney Miles. Whether Bentley should ever have faced a murder charge remains one of the principal questions surrounding the case. Although there were legal grounds on which such a charge could be brought, they took no account of his impaired mental capacity or the undisputed fact that he neither possessed nor fired the gun that killed the police officer.

The atmosphere in Britain at the time is also relevant. In 1952 there was widespread public concern about violent crime involving armed youths, and four police officers had been murdered during the previous year. Against that background, it is perhaps less surprising that the authorities decided to charge both young men with murder.

The Trial

Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig were tried together at the Old Bailey on Thursday 9 December 1952 before the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard. Both pleaded not guilty to the charge of murdering Police Constable Sidney Miles.

Although the case has become synonymous with Derek Bentley, it is worth remembering that Christopher Craig was also standing trial for the same offence. The prosecution’s case against each defendant was very different.

The Case Against Christopher Craig

It is often assumed that the evidence against Craig was overwhelming because he admitted being present and had unquestionably fired at the police. However, the case was not quite as straightforward as is sometimes suggested.

There was some debate during the trial as to whether the bullet that killed PC Sidney Miles had actually been fired from Craig’s .455 revolver, and the bullet produced in court reportedly showed no traces of blood. Nevertheless, this issue was not pursued in any significant detail and Craig was convicted.

Even if it could not be conclusively proved that Craig fired the fatal shot, there is a strong argument that he remained legally responsible for the officer’s death. Had Craig not armed himself with a revolver and opened fire on the police officers, the fatal shooting would never have occurred.

The Case Against Derek Bentley

The prosecution’s case against Derek Bentley was entirely different.

Unlike Craig, Bentley neither possessed nor fired a gun. The Crown instead relied upon three principal arguments in an attempt to establish that he shared responsibility for the murder under the legal doctrine of common purpose.

These three issues formed the foundation of the prosecution’s case and ultimately led to Bentley’s conviction for murder despite the fact that he had not fired the fatal shot.

The Famous Words – “Let Him Have It, Chris”

Whether Derek Bentley actually uttered the words “Let him have it, Chris” has been debated for more than seventy years. Even if the words were spoken, there has always been disagreement over what Bentley intended them to mean.

The prosecution argued that the words were an instruction to Christopher Craig to shoot Detective Constable Fairfax, thereby demonstrating that Bentley and Craig shared a common purpose and were acting together throughout the incident. If that interpretation were accepted, Bentley could be held legally responsible for the murder of PC Sidney Miles, despite not firing the fatal shot himself.

However, another interpretation has always existed. The phrase “let him have it” can equally mean “hand it over” or “give him the gun.” If Bentley intended those words in that sense, they could have represented an attempt to persuade Craig to surrender rather than an encouragement to continue shooting.

Whether the words were ever spoken at all is also open to question. It has been suggested that they may never have been uttered and were instead relied upon later to strengthen the prosecution’s argument that Bentley and Craig were acting with a common purpose.

The Importance of “Common Purpose”

Under English law, two or more people who jointly commit a crime can each be held responsible for the actions of the other where there is a common purpose—that is, where they both intended, or could reasonably have foreseen, the criminal outcome.

A straightforward example would be a man and woman who conspire to murder the woman’s husband. If she deliberately lures him to a place where her lover kills him, she is equally guilty of murder even though she never struck the fatal blow, because both intended the same result.

Another example would be two armed robbers who exchange gunfire with police officers before escaping. If an officer is killed but it cannot be proved which robber fired the fatal shot, both may still be convicted because each willingly participated in the armed attack and shared responsibility for the foreseeable consequences.

In my opinion, however, the known and undisputed facts of Derek Bentley’s case do not fit comfortably into either of these examples. Bentley neither carried nor fired a gun, and his own actions during the incident were fundamentally different from Craig’s. Whether he truly shared Craig’s intentions remains one of the central questions in this case.

Bentley’s Detention – Was He Already Under Police Control?

Another important issue at the trial was whether Derek Bentley had effectively ceased participating in the burglary before the fatal shot was fired.

It is not disputed that Detective Constable Fairfax had detained Bentley on the roof before Christopher Craig shot the officer. Bentley made no attempt to escape and remained with Fairfax throughout the remainder of the incident. However, Fairfax had not formally arrested him by cautioning him or charging him with an offence.

Given that Fairfax had himself been shot in the shoulder and was attempting to deal with an extremely dangerous situation, it is hardly surprising that formally arresting Bentley was not his immediate priority. Had Bentley been formally placed under arrest before the fatal shooting, it would have provided a much stronger argument that he had withdrawn from any joint enterprise before PC Sidney Miles was killed.

During the trial Bentley himself was unable to give a clear account of whether he believed he had been arrested. He performed poorly in the witness box and appeared confused, something that has often been attributed to his limited intellectual ability and the pressure of the proceedings.

There is, of course, no dispute that Bentley voluntarily accompanied Craig to commit the burglary. He was carrying both a knife and a knuckle-duster, weapons that Lord Goddard referred to during the trial. Those facts undoubtedly counted against him.

Nevertheless, once Fairfax had detained him, Bentley’s conduct appears markedly different from Craig’s. Rather than attempting to escape or assisting Craig, he remained beside the wounded detective for approximately thirty minutes without restraint. In my opinion, this is inconsistent with the behaviour of someone who was actively participating in the continuing violence that followed.

Lord Goddard and the Jury

Lord Chief Justice Goddard has often been criticised for the way in which he conducted the trial, and it has frequently been suggested that his summing up was unfavourable to the defence.

Whatever view is taken of his conduct, the jury retired to consider their verdicts and returned after just seventy-five minutes, finding both Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley guilty of murder.

Craig, being only sixteen years old, could not legally receive the death penalty and was sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s Pleasure. Bentley, however, was over the age at which capital punishment could be imposed and therefore received the mandatory sentence of death. Craig ultimately served just over ten years’ imprisonment.

Although the jury recommended mercy in Bentley’s case, Lord Goddard did not make a similar recommendation when submitting his report to the Home Office. It has been suggested that he believed Bentley would ultimately be reprieved and therefore considered such a recommendation unnecessary.

Appeal and the Home Secretary’s Decision

Derek Bentley’s appeal against his conviction was heard and dismissed on 13 January 1953. If Lord Goddard’s conduct of the trial has remained controversial, the Court of Appeal at the time found no reason to question either his handling of the case or the jury’s verdict.

With his legal appeal exhausted, Bentley’s fate rested entirely with the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe. Under the law as it then stood, the Home Secretary had the power to advise the Sovereign to exercise the Royal Prerogative of Mercy, effectively commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. He was under no obligation to explain the reasons for granting or refusing a reprieve.

This responsibility had passed to the Home Secretary during the reign of Queen Victoria, as it was considered inappropriate for the Sovereign personally to decide whether condemned prisoners should live or die.

By the early 1950s, the exercise of mercy was far from unusual. Around half of all death sentences were commuted to life imprisonment. Indeed, although thirteen executions took place in 1953—an unusually high annual total—many other condemned prisoners received reprieves.

As was standard practice, Bentley was examined by Home Office psychiatrists to determine whether he was mentally fit to suffer the death penalty. I assume that these examinations were carried out in accordance with normal procedure, but they did not result in any recommendation that his sentence should be commuted on grounds of mental incapacity.

Meanwhile, public opposition to the execution gathered momentum. Bentley’s father led a determined campaign to save his son’s life, supported by Members of Parliament and many members of the public. Because of parliamentary convention at the time, MPs were unable to debate Bentley’s individual case until after the execution had taken place. Nevertheless, two hundred Members of Parliament signed a petition calling for him to be reprieved.

On the morning of the execution, a large crowd assembled outside Wandsworth Prison, reflecting the widespread unease surrounding the case. Despite the public campaign, the petition from Parliament and the jury’s recommendation for mercy, no reprieve was granted. Derek Bentley was executed on 28 January 1953.

Why Wasn’t Derek Bentley Reprieved?

The decision not to reprieve Derek Bentley has remained one of the most controversial aspects of the case.

In my opinion, the Home Secretary had concluded that someone had to pay for the murder of a serving police officer. Because Christopher Craig was only sixteen years old and therefore legally exempt from the death penalty, Bentley became the only person who could be executed.

I have also long wondered whether Bentley was regarded as expendable at a time when attitudes towards capital punishment were beginning to change. I cannot prove this, but his execution provoked widespread public concern and undoubtedly became one of the cases that influenced opinion against the continued use of the death penalty in Britain.

The fact that the victim was a serving police officer undoubtedly increased the political sensitivity of the case. The Home Office appeared reluctant to recommend mercy where police officers had been murdered, particularly in cases involving firearms. Whether that influenced the final decision in Bentley’s case can never be known with certainty, but it remains an important part of the historical debate.

Justice at Last – The Conviction Quashed

For many years after Derek Bentley’s execution, his family continued to campaign tirelessly to clear his name. The driving force behind that campaign was initially his father, who never accepted the verdict reached at the Old Bailey. Following his death, Bentley’s sister Iris Bentley continued the fight with remarkable determination. After Iris’s death in 1994, the campaign was taken up by her daughter, Maria Bentley Dingwall.

Their persistence eventually led to the case being referred back to the Court of Appeal.

On 30 July 1998, more than forty-five years after Bentley’s execution, the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction, concluding that the trial had been fundamentally unfair. Lord Bingham, delivering the judgment, criticised significant aspects of Lord Goddard’s summing up to the jury, finding that it had failed to present Bentley’s defence fairly and had placed him at a serious disadvantage.

The Court of Appeal did not rule that Derek Bentley was innocent of all wrongdoing. Rather, it concluded that his conviction for murder was unsafe because the jury had not been properly directed on crucial issues during the trial. As a result, the conviction could no longer be regarded as safe in law.

For Bentley’s surviving family, the decision marked the end of one of the longest campaigns to overturn a criminal conviction in British legal history. Although no court ruling could undo the execution carried out in 1953, the judgment finally acknowledged that the legal process leading to his conviction had been flawed.

Historical Significance

The Derek Bentley case has become one of the defining episodes in the history of British criminal justice and capital punishment.

It is frequently cited in discussions of joint enterprise, the reliability of disputed spoken evidence, the treatment of defendants with learning disabilities, judicial directions to juries and the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The case also played an important role in shaping public opinion during the years leading to the abolition of capital punishment for murder in Britain.

More than seventy years after Bentley’s execution, the words “Let him have it, Chris” remain among the most famous—and most controversial—in British legal history.

In my opinion, Derek Bentley’s case demonstrates why the death penalty carries a unique and irreversible risk. Once a sentence has been carried out, no subsequent court can truly correct a miscarriage of justice. The quashing of Bentley’s conviction in 1998 restored his legal reputation, but it could never restore the life that had been taken more than four decades earlier.

Timeline

Date	Event
30 June 1933	Derek William Bentley is born.
2 November 1952	Bentley and Christopher Craig attempt to burgle a warehouse in Croydon.
2 November 1952	Detective Constable Fairfax is shot and wounded.
2 November 1952	Police Constable Sidney Miles is fatally shot.
9 December 1952	Trial opens at the Old Bailey before Lord Goddard.
December 1952	Bentley is convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
13 January 1953	Appeal dismissed.
28 January 1953	Bentley executed at Wandsworth Prison.
30 July 1998	Court of Appeal quashes Bentley’s conviction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was Derek Bentley?

Derek Bentley was a nineteen-year-old Londoner who was executed in 1953 after being convicted of the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles. Although he did not fire the fatal shot, he was found guilty under the legal principle of common purpose.

Did Derek Bentley shoot anyone?

No. Christopher Craig admitted firing the shots. Bentley’s conviction rested on the prosecution’s argument that he encouraged Craig by saying, “Let him have it, Chris.”

What did “Let him have it, Chris” mean?

The phrase has always been disputed. The prosecution argued that it meant “shoot him,” while others have argued that Bentley meant “hand over the gun.” The meaning of those words became one of the central issues in the case.

Why wasn’t Christopher Craig executed?

Christopher Craig was only sixteen years old at the time of the offence. Under the law then in force, offenders under the age of eighteen could not be sentenced to death.

Was Derek Bentley pardoned?

Bentley received a posthumous Royal Pardon in respect of his execution, but it was not until 30 July 1998 that the Court of Appeal quashed his murder conviction.

Readers interested in the Derek Bentley case may also wish to read the following posts:

Support the Archive

If you have found this article useful and would like to help preserve and maintain this historical archive, please consider supporting the site.