Let Him Have It Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 41 out of 50 people found the following review useful: A good film Author: sambora10 (sambora10@hotmail.com) 4 April 2003 I was made to watch this about 3 or 4 years ago in my English class. My teacher was a successful lawyer who had quit his high paying job after seeing this film so that he could teach English. He explained to us that the reason for him resigning was that he couldn't believe the dishonesty and destructiveness that was caused by lawyers and judges in the court (or something along those words, I don't remember precisely). Anyway, I thought he was mad but when I watched it I was very surprised, firstly that this film had never come to my attention before, or the case for that matter and secondly that the quality of the movie was almost genius. I didn't understand at the time how seemingly good actors like this had not been getting any media coverage since, or not that I knew of. Afterwards I was glad I saw it in the English class and got a top grade for my review of it and I subsequently bought the DVD.

Paul Reynolds and Christopher Eccleston make the best performances but there's also some good smaller roles in the movie. Not a masterpiece but certainly an underrated but memorable film. Was the above review useful to you? 28 out of 34 people found the following review useful: Is Bentley really one of the Gang? from UK 4 November 2003 This is a very convincing film of the life of Derek Bentley and his eventual execution. 1950s Britain is just beginning to emerge from the years of post-War austerity with all of the milk bars, pop records and teddy boy youth culture showing a new, malign confidence. The undercurrent is definitely youth crime gone wild. But is Derek Bentley really one of the gang? Christopher Eccleston is absolutely brilliant playing Bentley, and truly captures the inner torment and diffidence of a young man suffering from years of epilepsy and failure at school. Bentley is clearly not normal and probably more impressionable than most people of his age  this is the essence of this tragic story. He wants to be like everyone else but stupidly chooses the wrong people  or do they choose him?

You are never sure whether Bentley's friend Chris Craig (the brilliant Paul Reynolds) is a nasty piece of work or maybe someone else led astray, this time by his truly monstrous, menacing older brother Niven Craig (Mark McGann) who he sees receiving 10 years for armed resistance to police arrest. Who is Craig - is he Pinkie in Brighton Rock (Boulting 1947), Jimmy Hanley in the Blue Lamp (Dearden, 1950) or one of the famous five with a gun? After his brother's trial, Chris lies down at night and then  rather poignantly and in a nice little flourish from director Peter Medak  lays down his handgun on his bedside table, finding a gap amongst his toy cars, trams and aeroplanes. Perhaps he's just a naïve little kid after all. When the gang goes to the cinema what else would they watch but a Jimmy Cagney gangster movie? Maybe if they'd watched the Blue Lamp instead they would have been warned off. Anyway, Bentley clearly did not murder the policeman on the rooftop - that was Craig (some say it was a policeman's bullet gone astray).

Bentley was executed for a crime he did not commit, pure and simple. Good, haunting musical score by Michael Kamen. Was the above review useful to you? 24 out of 27 people found the following review useful: A shocking portrayal of the Death Penalty in 50's England from Maine USA 10 November 2002 A shocking portrayal of the use of the Death Penalty in the United Kingdom during the 1950's. A mentally unstable young man with epilepsy called Derek Bentley faces the gallows for a crime he did not commit, While the accomplice, Christopher Craig, who did fire the fatal shot, only serves time at Her Majesties Pleasure. In reality Christopher Craig only served 10 years while Derek Bentley had his life taken away. A gritty drama telling of Bentley and Craig's criminal exploits in South London shortly after the war. Was the above review useful to you? 25 out of 30 people found the following review useful: A chilling tale from Singapore 22 August 2000 I did not know about this case before I watched this film, but the synopsis on the back of the video case was so compelling I had to rent it.

I did not expect to be emotionally involved but it was hard to keep from shouting at the TV screen that it's unfair. The system portrayed seemed almost hellbent on sending Derek to the gallows, guilty or not. Even when evidence seem tainted or appeared to cast doubts on the veracity of some of the testimonies, the only cry ringing out was that a cop was killed and someone's blood must be spilled in revenge. It is chilling to know that sometimes justice can be blinded when emotions are involved, showing how important it must be to fully understand the implications before imposing any penalties which cannot be reversed even if desired. Was the above review useful to you? 17 out of 20 people found the following review useful: On death and belonging 4 May 2004 *** This review may contain spoilers *** This review contains what may be considered as SPOILERS by those who do not know the true story on which this film is based. Derek Bentley was one of the most unfortunate men to suffer the death penalty in Britain. He was mentally sub-normal, he didn't kill anyone personally and even his fatal cry to his accomplice, Christopher Craig, echoed in this film's title, was disputed in court and is anyway ambiguous in meaning.

And even after his conviction, both judge and jury recommended clemency. But a policeman had died, Craig (who shot him) was too young to hang and so Bentley was murdered by the state. The strength of Peter Medak's reconstruction of these events is that neither man is presented as a devil or an angel; Craig (played by Paul Reynolds) is just a boy with fantasies of becoming a gangster (but no less dangerous for that); Bentley (Chris Ecclestone) a sad and lonely figure, motivated by the desperate need to belong. Both young actors are excellent. Their portrayals are set against a bleak but convincing backdrop of the forgotten rhythms of life in austerity Britain, a period (perhaps because it predated rock and roll) rarely celebrated by cheap nostalgia. 'Let Him Have It' is not the most entertaining film ever made, but its power grows as you watch it. Certainly a film with the power to make proponents of the death penalty uneasy. Was the above review useful to you? 18 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Gut-wrenching from Selbyside - St. Paul, MN USA 3 June 2004 This movie is one of the saddest pictures ever made.

Made even more sad by the fact that this is based on a true story. I couldn't believe this was Christopher Eccleston's 2nd movie; I hadn't seen him in anything before JUDE. I'm utterly speechless to talk about this movie. I noticed someone commented saying this is like DEAD MAN WALKING; that movie does not compare to this. Bare in mind that LET HIM HAVE IT WAS MADE 4 years before DMW. I felt this one was much, much, much more rendering and mournful. God bless you Brits for making films on social content with such potency; American audiences could take a lesson from you: SCUM, LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER, ALFIE, ...if, TRAINSPOTTING (best movie ever made) Was the above review useful to you? 11 out of 12 people found the following review useful: Brilliantly Portrayed True Tale of a Cruel Injustice. 16 March 2003 *** This review may contain spoilers *** This film inflamed me with frustration and anger when i watched it, not at any failing in its telling, but at the injustice and state brutality which took place within it.

This film is a lovingly crafted character driven drama set in 1950's England, covering the true story of Derek Bentley, a young epileptic man of limited intelligence who is innocently led astray by his younger troubled tearaway friend Chris Craig. Their initially minor law infringements escalate to murder one night, and both end up on trial. The films title is pivotal in this, but i do not wish to provide any spoilers for anyone who does not know the true story. the plot isn't the primary focus of this film, however compelling and obviously important it is. The film centres on the relationships between Derek and those he knows, his family, Chris, and the gang that he and Chris join (Derek for acceptance, and Chris to emulate the American gangsters he sees at the cinema and impress his thuggish brother). The cast are totally convincing, Christopher Eccleston giving a very accomplished performance as a simple man thrust into complex circumstances, and Paul Reynolds is also perfect as the playful but insecure troublemaker who fires the fatal shot.

the film is essentially an account of the interactions and emotions of a small group of people put in a terrible situation, of innocence robbed, and of state brutality (you'll clench your fists at the ignorance and insensitivity). it's not an explosive film, it doesn't throw up audiovisual storms of any kind, it just follows the lives of these characters, rooting the film in the reality on which it is based. i cried at the end you know, i thought i might and then i did, it's one of those sorts of films. but please do watch it, i promise it's more interesting than i've made it sound. Was the above review useful to you? 20 out of 30 people found the following review useful: Events in 1952 viewed with the benefit of 40 -odd years hindsight 12 April 2006 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Not much in the way of subtlety here,the makers' stall is set out from early on,Derek Bentley was murdered by "The State" in revenge for his juvenile partner-in-crime's murder of a policeman.They couldn't hang a boy of 16 so they hanged Bentley instead.

Let's have a closer look at the facts.Firstly,this happened in 1952.There was no "gun culture" amongst teenagers.Teddy Boys,the "Hoodies" of their day,carried razor blades or flick knives.There were no drive by shootings,no drug wars.For a young man to have access to a gun was a very rare event.Christopher Craig apparently had access to a gun obtained by his older brother,a professional criminal.Very few professional criminals took guns with them on the job because if you have a gun,you will use it. In 1952 the law of the land was very clear about what would happen to you if you killed someone in furtherance of theft.You would hang.If two of you were so engaged,you would both hang. Regardless of what we might think of this law today it was in force in 1952. You cannot judge the Bentley/Craig case by 21st century standards. And this is what "Let him have it Chris" demands that you do. One of the cornerstones of the controversy is the title of the film.

The defence argued that when (or,later,if)Bentley shouted that across the rooftop he meant the Craig should surrender his gun to the police. Not surprisingly the prosecution argued that he was telling Craig to shoot the policeman.Craig denies it was ever said.This turns those five words into a "verbal",the defence say,a statement fabricated by the police.Now if you think seriously about this you may find that "Let him have it Chris" is far too ambivalent to be a verbal."Shoot the bastard" would be far more to the point and there could be no argument as to its meaning.You might think that police officers would be far more likely to fabricate a unequivocal verbal. The implication that Craig was pushed off the roof is ludicrous,there is no evidence to support it.It's merely a move to further discredit the police.If you spread enough muck around some of it is bound to stick. And the emotive power of the phrase "Bentley was already in police custody when Craig fired the shot" doesn't give a true reflection of what actually occurred.He wasn't in a cell somewhere,he was on the rooftop,in the dead of night,being restrained by a police officer.

Scarcely "in police custody" then, in any meaningful sense of the term. Questions about his mental acuity are,once again,beyond the remit of our 21st century overview.The degree of his handicap has been in dispute for years,but to call him a virtual mental defective is simplistic in the extreme. Certainly in these more enlightened times it is unlikely given the strongly argued mental competence issue that he would be charged with murder - I would expect a plea of diminished responsibility to be acceptable to the prosecution.But this was 1952,and I cannot emphasise enough the folly of considering events of the past through the sensibi- -lities of the present. Derek Bentley may not have been very sharp,but he knew that warehousebreaking was a crime and he went out and did it anyway.He may well have been in thrall to Christopher Craig who was clearly the main instigator of the crime,but he wasn't dragged up on that rooftop kicking and screaming. The only innocent victim here is PC Miles,whose name no one seems to remember.He was just a middle-aged London copper trying to do his job and get home safely in the morning.Thanks to Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig he never made it. Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 21 people found the following review useful: Some real facts (dont think these are in the films credits) from United Kingdom 16 March 2005 Eventually, in 1993 the then Home Secretary Michael Howard granted Bentley a partial pardon, saying it was clear he should never have been hanged but he remained guilty of taking part in the murder. Iris Bentley (Dereks mother) died in 1997 before the case was referred back to the Appeal Court. In 1998 the Appeal Court quashed Bentley's conviction on the grounds the original trial judge was biased against the defendants and misdirected the jury on points of law. Scientific evidence also showed the three police officers who testified about Bentley shouting "Let him have it" had lied under oath. Craig served 10 years before being released. Was the above review useful to you? 12 out of 19 people found the following review useful: An excellent film! Author: Patrick 4 June 1999 I rented this movie with not very high expectations, but I was extremely surprised. It was a truly great movie with good acting.

I recommend this movie to anybody who liked "Dead Man Walking" or any other crime/drama movie. This movie was great! Was the above review useful to you? Page 1 of 4: Let Him Have It [DVD] [1991]: Amazon.co.uk: Christopher Eccleston, Paul Reynolds, Tom Courtenay, Tom Bell, Eileen Atkins, Clare Holman, Michael Gough, Michael Elphick, Mark McGann, Serena Scott Thomas, Peter Medak: DVD & Blu-ray Let Him Have It [DVD] [1991] Â£12.23 & FREE UK Delivery on orders dispatched by Amazon over Â£20. Details Only 1 left in stock. This item can be delivered to your selected dispatch location in the United States. Details Sold by best_value_entertainment and Fulfilled by Amazon . Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) is a service Amazon offers sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's warehouses, and Amazon directly does the picking, packing, shipping and customer service on these items. Something Amazon hopes you'll especially enjoy: FBA items are eligible for and for Amazon Prime just as if they were Amazon items.

If you're a seller, you can increase your sales significantly by using Fulfilment by Amazon. We invite you to learn more about this programme . Note: This item is eligible for click and collect. Details Pick up your parcel at a time and place that suits you. Choose from over 13,000 locations across the UK Prime members get unlimited deliveries at no additional cost How to order to an Amazon Pickup Location? Find your preferred location and add it to your address book Dispatch to this address when you check out 5 new from Â£4.50 6 used from Â£1.00 See all buying options Let Him Have It [DVD] [1991] Â£12.23 & FREE UK Delivery on orders dispatched by Amazon over Â£20. Details Only 1 left in stock. Sold by best_value_entertainment and Fulfilled by Amazon . Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA) is a service Amazon offers sellers that lets them store their products in Amazon's warehouses, and Amazon directly does the picking, packing, shipping and customer service on these items. Something Amazon hopes you'll especially enjoy: FBA items are eligible for and for Amazon Prime just as if they were Amazon items.

If you're a seller, you can increase your sales significantly by using Fulfilment by Amazon. We invite you to learn more about this programme . Frequently Bought Together Add all three to Basket These items are dispatched from and sold by different sellers. Show details Buy the selected items together This item:Let Him Have It [DVD] [1991] by Christopher Eccleston DVD Â£12.23 Only 1 left in stock. Sold by best_value_entertainment and sent from Amazon Fulfillment. FREE Delivery on orders over Â£20. Details Dance With A Stranger [DVD] by Miranda Richardson DVD Â£3.59 In stock. Sent from and sold by Amazon. FREE Delivery on orders over Â£20. Details Pierrepoint [DVD] [2006] by Timothy Spall DVD Â£5.99 In stock. Sent from and sold by Amazon. FREE Delivery on orders over Â£20. Details What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item? Format: PAL, Full Screen Language: English Region: Region 2 (This DVD may not be viewable outside Europe. Read more about DVD formats.

) Aspect Ratio: 4:3 - 1.33:1 DVD Release Date: 28 Jun. 2004 Run Time: 103 minutes Product Description Product Description The true story of Derek Bentley (Christopher Eccleston), hanged, aged 19, in the 1950s after a controversial decision holding him responsible for the murder of a police officer. Despite a history of mental illness, and with the court accepting that he did not actually pull the trigger, Bentley was still sentenced to death - on the basis that his ambiguous cry of 'let him have it!' caused his young accomplice to fire the fatal shot. The release of this film focused attention on the case once more, and Bentley eventually received a posthumous pardon. Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought Page 1 of 1 Start over Page 1 of 1 This shopping feature will continue to load items. In order to navigate out of this carousel please use your heading shortcut key to navigate to the next or previous heading. By Greg Farefield-Rose on 30 Jan. 2007 Format: DVD Powerful film about one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern British history - the hanging of Derek Bentley.

It's 1952 and the easily-led 19-year-old Bentley has fallen in with 16 year old Christopher Craig and his south London hoodlums. The pair rather haphazardly decide to rob a local butchers but are apprehended by the police. Bentley immediately gives himself up but Craig, full of anger after his brother's recent imprisonment, pulls out a gun and starts firing at the officers. The captured Bentley screams "let him have it Chris" but is he imploring Craig to hand over his gun or continue shooting? Craig fires the gun seriously wounding one officer and half-an-hour later kills another policeman before his capture. Cue to the trial, Christopher Craig is found guilty of murder but is too young to hang whereas Bentley is astonishingly found guilty for his "let him have it" plea and a capital sentence is passed. Despite the jury's recommendation for leniency and a massive public outcry, the 19 year old with the IQ of a boy of 11 is sent to the gallows just one month later at Wandsworth prison. Let Him Have It powerfully tells the story of this terrible travesty with a young Christopher Eccleston in the lead role.

Some of the acting is a bit hammy but this doesn't really matter when the main purpose of the film is its message. The film also presents an interesting historical picture of life in urban Britain in the rationing years after the Second World War. Derek Bentley's parents campaigned for his official pardon till their deaths in the 70s and, at the time of the movie's release in 1991, this still wasn't forthcoming. Read more › Murder is Everywhere: Let Him Have It Let Him Have It Derek Bentley The case of Derek William Bentley (30 June 1933 – 28 January 1953) was a case that changed English law. He was hanged for the murder of a policeman even though he didn’t fire the fatal shot and he was probably incapable of defending himself in court due to him having limited mental capacity. In those days, there was the English law principle of common purpose, of "joint enterprise". Bentley and his co accused, a minor aged 16, were on the roof when a policeman appeared and restrained Bentley. The policeman asked the minor for his gun and then Bentley uttered those tragically ambiguous words "Let him have it" or did he?

Christopher Craig The co accused, is still alive and has undergone polygraph testing to prove that he is being truthful when he says, (and has said all along ) that no such words were spoken. Before he died Bentley also denied saying the words. At the trial, the Lord Chief Justice Goddard described Bentley as "mentally aiding the murder of Police Constable Sidney Miles" and sentenced him to death simply because at that time, under English law, there was no other sentence possible. A posthumous pardon was granted in 1993 and a his murder conviction was quashed 1998. Bentley was a sad soul right from day one. Aged 15, a childhood accident had broken his nose and his parents reported that he had suffered fits ever since, including one so severe he nearly choked to death. The family were bombed out their house three times during World War II. In one incident the house Bentley was living in, collapsed around him. He lost close friends and family. At some point through this, he developed epilepsy. By December 1948 when he was fifteen, his mental age was ten years and his reading age estimated at just over four years.

He could not write or recognise the letters of the alphabet. And he was gullible, easily led astray by those with a more cunning nature. On 2nd November 1952, he tried to burgle a warehouse with a sixteen-year-old companion, Christopher Craig. Bentley was now an adult in the eyes of the law, Craig was still a minor. Craig was much more worldly wise, a would-be gangster who Bentley looked up to. Bentley’s parents had tried to warn their simple son off a friendship with Craig, and in a strange twist of fate, they enlisted the help of a family friend, a local police officer to try and intervene and warn Bentley that this friendship with Craig, a well-known tearaway, could only be detrimental to his future. That local bobby was the man the Craig later shot dead on the roof top of the Barlow & Parker confectionery company. The murder that Bentley would hang for. On the night of the attempted beak in, Craig carried a Colt New Service .455 Webley calibre revolver and he had shortened the barrel so that it could be easily hidden in his pocket.

He had also given Bentley a sheath knife and a spiked knuckle-duster. At the warehouse, they were seen climbing the drainpipe and the police were called. When the police arrived, the boys hid behind a lift housing. As Craig taunted the police, DS Fairfax, grabbed hold of Bentley, technically arresting him. Then the boy broke free. Then the famous exchanged was alleged to have happened; Fairfax said to Craig "Hand over the gun, lad" and Bentley replied "Let him have it, Chris". The Book Craig fired his gun at Fairfax and hit his shoulder. Fairfax grabbed Bentley again and Bentley told the policeman about Craig’s weapons. At no time did Bentley use the weapons he had in his pockets. Then more police arrived. First on the roof was the Bentley family friend, Police Constable Sidney Miles. He was killed instantly by a shot to the head. Craig then jumped around 30 feet from the roof of the factory onto a greenhouse and fractured his spine. Derek Bentley Story - my view The Derek Bentley Story - My View Here is my view of the Derek Bentley story. It draws on many of the documents mentioned on this site, but is beholden to none of them.

Derek Bentley was born on the 30th of June, 1933, and was hanged 19 years later. He grew up in the East End of London, and survived the Blitz during the Second World War. When he was 4 he fell, head first, from a lorry. The resultant blow caused epilepsy and brain damage, sufficient to give him a mental age well below his physical one. He suffered further blows to his head during his short life, and was to suffer fits thoughout. On Sunday the 2nd November 1952, Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley went out for an evening's breaking and entering. Bentley had a knife (for forcing locks) and a knuckle-duster which Craig had recently given him. Craig had a similar knife, and a sawn-off .455 Eley revolver (also known as a .45 Colt). He had carried a gun every day for many years - it was just something that he always had with him.

Bentley and Craig failed with the first two break-in attempts (due to a Butcher working late in his shop, and a courting couple being in the door of an electrical shop), but then tried the warehouse of the confectioners, Parker & Barlow. They climbed onto the roof of the warehouse, but had already been spotted by a young girl living opposite. The police were on their way. DC Fairfax reached the roof first and quickly arrested Bentley. It was at about this time that Bentley is supposed to have said "Let him have it, Chris", the phrase which was to lead to his hanging. Craig shot Fairfax in the shoulder, probably due to a ricochet from the roof they were standing on - his gun was so inaccurate that he was unlikely to have hit Fairfax directly. Fifteen minutes after Bentley's arrest (the whole "shoot-out" took 45 minutes), PC Sidney Miles burst through door at the top of a stairwell and straight into a bullet above his left eyebrow. After the killing Craig shot a few more times then, when he ran out of bullets, he hurled himself off the roof, breaking his pelvis. Bentley was contrastingly quiet and shocked after the death of PC Miles.

The Daily Mail, the day after the shooting, produced the following sensational and highly inaccurate report - note the 26 marked errors: Chicago Gun Battle in London: gangsters with machine guns on a roof kill detective, wound another: "Sidney Street" rages an hour, the hand-to-hand fight. Armed police shoot back' The London crime wave reached a new peak last night. A detective [sic] was shot dead and another seriously [sic] wounded in a second 'Battle of Sidney Street' [sic]. They had seen the flash of a torchlight in [sic] the warehouse of Barlow and Parker, wholesale confectioners, Tamworth Road, Croydon, just after ten o'clock [sic]. They entered the building [sic]. They cautiously edged their way in [sic]. Inside [sic] the raiders were so far undisturbed [sic]. Ambulances and fire brigades had been summoned. Then as the bandits realized they had been trapped by a police cordon, shooting began. The gangsters armed with a Sten-gun [sic] hit one of the officers as he climbed the fire escape [sic] towards the bandits.

He was Detective [sic] Constable Miles, in plain clothes [sic] of Z division, a married man, two children [sic] with 22 years service. He was killed. His colleague PC [sic] Frederick Fairfax, who was in a police patrol car [sic] dashed into an alleyway leading to another fire escape [sic] up which the gunman [sic] had climbed. As he went to help Miles there was another shot and people coming out of the Sunday cinemas heard one of the gunmen cry 'You won't get me'. PC Fairfax fell wounded in the shoulder. By this time 200 police were there, thirty [sic] of them armed with revolvers. Shots were exchanged.... Then the end came. As three [sic] officers crouching low, sprung onto the rooftop, the Sten-gun was flung in their faces [sic]. the ammunition had run out. Then a chase began over the roofs [sic] after the gunmen. They dodged behind chimney pots [sic]. One of them attempted to lower himself by a stackpipe [sic] at the rear of the premises.

By this time more police were on the roofs, and there were hand-to-hand battles [sic] before the two gunmen [sic] were finally overpowered, hand-cuffed and brought to street level. Here one of the gunmen was found to be injured, and was taken to Croydon General Hospital. When the shooting began Scotland Yard mobilized all police officers and C.I.D. men from Kent and the Metropolitan area. "Get them at all costs", was the order to the 200 police officers in the battle. The media, following public opinion, were baying for blood when the case came to trial, a mere six weeks after the shooting. A policeman had been murdered, so the London "cosh boys" involved had to hang. In time-honoured fashion, the media completely changed tack after the conviction, asking why this judicial murder was being allowed to go ahead. Public opinion after the trial was divided. Crowds nearly rioted outside Wandsworth prison - only the intervention of Derek's father calmed the mob. They felt that Bentley was only going to the gallows because a authorities were frustrated that they couldn't hang the real killer.

On the other hand, some people still hung on to the belief that the death of a policeman required some response, if only "to encourage the others". South London's climate of fear over "cosh boys" seemed to demand an execution in this outrageous instance of murder. The desire for a conviction went right through the Establishment - a report on the case was requested on behalf of the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, though he had shown no such interest in other recent police killings. The judge, Lord Chief Justice Goddard, conducted an extremely biased trial. He destroyed any arguments being constructed by the defence and helped the prosecution whenever he could. His summing up was selective and damaging. He failed to urge on the Home Secretary the jury's recommendation to mercy. The Home Secretary, David Maxwell Fife, was deaf to all appeals for clemency, even though it was morally and legally justified. The prosecution felt that the whole thing hinged on a point of law, from Rex v.

Appleby 1940: Where two persons engage in the commission of a crime with a common design of resisting by violence arrest by an officer of justice, they have a common design to do that which will amount to murder if the officer should be killed in consequence of resistance. If, therefore, an officer of justice is killed in such circumstances, both persons are guilty of murder. David Yallop argues that not only had the "common purpose" stopped when Bentley was arrested, but that there was in fact no murder - the fatal bullet came from a police marksman or from a an unlucky ricochet from Craig's gun. The "design of resisting arrest by violence" was never satisfactorily proved. Bentley avoided violence whenever possible. Two weeks before the warehouse shoot-out, he had refused to go with Craig when he intended to hold up a grocer's shop. Bentley's defence counsel (who had, before the trial, expressed the desire to see his client hang!) failed to introduce several arguments which could have saved Bentley's life. It could have been argued that he was unfit to stand trial - his continuing epilepsy and his extremely low intellect were strong reasons. One crucial point of law was whether Bentley was under arrest when Miles was killed.

The police knew that he was under arrest, Craig knew that Bentley was under arrest, everyone knew - except for Bentley himself. When repeatedly asked, he sealed his own fate by claiming that he was not under arrest, simply because he was not actually being physically restrained. The prosecution counsel, Christmas Humphries, was happy to dwell on this point, using the foolish and naive claims of a simpleton as fact, when the contradictory views of stronger and more experieced minds were ignored. Indeed, there might not have been a murder at all. The bullet which killed Miles was never found. A pathologist who examined the body thought that the fatal bullet was about a .32 calibre one, so could not possibly have been fired from Craig's gun. Also, when PC Miles came though the stairwell door, he would have turned away from Craig, towards his colleagues. How then could Craig have shot him in the forehead? There was an agreement between the prosecution and defence counsels not to introduce evidence about the third boy who was probably on the roof top. Lord Goddard's summing up was a masterpiece of flawed and biassed logic.

He spent 45 minutes summing up and expanding upon the prosecution case in dramatic and lurid detail, and one short sentence on the defence. As he completed his presentation, the official transcript (as corrected by Goddard himself) has him saying "..., and if you find good ground for convicting them, it is your duty to do it". Several others in the court (John Parris included) heard him say "..., and unless you find good ground for not convicting them, it is your duty to do it". This is not only against all precepts of British law, but showed beyond doubt that Goddard was out for blood. He subsequently claimed that he never believed that Bentley would actually hang for the crime. He chose very funny way of showing that. Having ensured that the trial verdict was a Guilty one (possibly to satisfy his depraved sexual appetites), he then failed to pass on to the Home Secretary the jury's plea for mercy. The jury considered their verdict for just 75 minutes before returning guilty verdicts on both youths, with a recommendation for mercy in Bentley's case. Bentley was sentenced to death.

Craig, who the judge described as 'one of the most dangerous young criminals who has ever stood in that dock' was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. After the trial, many attempts were made to secure a reprieve for Bentley. The Home Secretary blocked all attempts by his MP colleagues even to get the matter discussed. At one point, it was argued that a Parliamentary debate on whether the sentence should be carried out could only take place after the sentence had been carried out. Derek Bentley, at age nineteen, was hanged in Wandsworth at 9am on 28th January 1953. Chris Craig was released from prison in May 1963 and he settled in Buckinghamshire. Iris Bentley, Derek's sister, had campaigned for a full pardon for Derek ever since the guilty verdict. She had few victories over the years. One was that Derek's remains were removed from their unmarked grave in Wandsworth Prison and were reburied in Croydon Cemetery on 4 March 1968, ironically only a few yards from where Sydney Miles' ashes were scattered.

Sadly, Iris died on 23 January, 1997, just a few weeks before Derek's case was due to be reviewed with a good chance of that full pardon being granted. In the event, the Home Office has passed the buck to the new Criminal Case Review Commission, so the date for any hearing has slipped somewhat into the future. Despite this, Iris' daughter Maria is continuing the struggle. Historic cases could be challenged after joint enterprise ruling | Law | The Guardian Historic cases could be challenged after joint enterprise ruling Five examples of joint enterprise-related convictions – three that could be revisited, and two that will stand Nathan Matthews and Shauna Hoare during the Becky Watts murder trial. Hoare’s case could be affected by the supreme court ruling. Photograph: Metropolitan police Thursday 18 February 2016 08.51 EST Last modified on Thursday 18 February 2016 17.01 EST Close This article is 12 months old Some of the UK’s most infamous cases are among the hundreds of convictions that could be challenged after the supreme court ruled that joint enterprise laws have been misinterpreted for over 30 years.

Joint enterprise law wrongly interpreted for 30 years, court rules Read more Prosecutors, judges and jurors will now have to take a different approach when dealing with defendants accused of being involved in joint enterprise crimes. Campaign group Jengba (Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association) said the ruling was a major turning point in British justice. Here are five examples of when joint enterprise laws have been used to secure a conviction, some of which could be affected by Thursday’s ruling: Derek Bentley (Sidney Miles) Pinterest Derek Bentley aged 17 in 1950. Photograph: Collect / Graham Turner for the Guardian The 1952 case of Derek Bentley is perhaps the most famous use of joint enterprise law in the UK, although it is unaffected by Thursday’s supreme court finding as it only applies to cases from 1984 onwards. Bentley, then 18, and Christopher Craig, then 16, were caught on 2 November 1952 as they attempted to burgle a confectionery warehouse in Croydon in south London. Craig shot dead a policeman, Sidney Miles, but Bentley was also convicted of murder and hanged. Craig escaped hanging because of his age.

The police officer is said to have asked Craig to “hand over the gun” and Bentley responded by shouting the notoriously ambiguous phrase “let him have it”. These words formed the vital evidence of joint enterprise at his trial. On 30 July 1998, the court of appeal quashed Bentley’s conviction for murder. Craig welcomed the ruling. Since Bentley was tried before the 1984 change to joint enterprise rules, the supreme court ruling will not lead to any further judicial revisions. Jordan Cunliffe, Stephen Sorton and Adam Swellings (Garry Newlove) Pinterest (Left to right) Stephen Sorton, Jordan Cunlifffe and Adam Swellings. Photograph: Cheshire Constabulary/PA Joint enterprise was used to convict and jail three teenagers for the 2007 murder of Garry Newlove , who was kicked to death after confronting a group of drunk people outside his house in Warrington. Cunliffe’s mother has campaigned against joint enterprise , arguing that although her son was at the scene, he did not take part in the murder.

At the time, he had severe keratoconus, a degenerative eye condition, and Jordan’s visual impairment meant he qualified for registration as a blind person. Cunliffe’s case inspired screenwriter Jimmy McGovern to write Common , a drama surrounding a case in which the defendants are charged with murder involving joint enterprise. David Norris and Gary Dobson (Stephen Lawrence) Pinterest Gary Dobson (left) and David Norris. Photograph: CPS/PA The eventual conviction of the killers of black teenager Stephen Lawrence was secured using joint enterprise legislation. In 1993, the 18-year-old was murdered in a racially motivated attack in south-east London. In 2011, the case reopened in the light of new evidence and, even though it was impossible to say who had inflicted the fatal wound, Gary Dobson and David Norris were convicted for the joint enterprise of the murder . The prosecution argued that it did not matter whether the pair had carried out the actual stabbing – rather, it was important that they were part of an attack that could end in serious harm. Since Norris and Dobson were not convicted under foresight provisions and there was clear evidence recorded of racist intent, the supreme court ruling will not affect their case.

Shauna Hoare (Becky Watts) Pinterest Nathan Matthews and Shauna Hoare. Photograph: Avon and Somerset police The case of Shauna Hoare, who was convicted of killing Bristol teenager Becky Watts , could be affected by Thursday’s supreme court ruling. During the trial of Hoare and her partner, Nathan Matthews, the judge and legal teams were open to the idea that if the supreme court judgment came before the jury reached its verdicts it could have a dramatic impact on the case. The trial judge, Mr Justice Dingemans, specifically asked barristers to keep abreast of developments at the supreme court. Matthews was accused of physically killing Watts and was eventually found guilty of murder. The prosecution case was that Hoare was in the house at the time and was involved in a plot to kidnap Becky, 16, to fulfil her and Matthews’s fantasy of having sex with a petite teenage girl. Even ahead of the supreme court judgment, Matthews and Hoare had launched appeals against their convictions and sentences. Kujtim Spahiu (Prel Marku) Prel Marku was shot on 14 October 2006 in an Albanian/Kosovan club in Park Royal, north-west London.

The man who fired the fatal shots was Herland Bilali. He is serving life for murder. But another young man, Kujtim “Timi” Spahiu, who had accompanied Bilali into the club was also sentenced for life . His supporters have claimed that he was a victim of joint enterprise laws. It is understood his case is likely to be one of those that stands to benefit from the supreme court ruling. Joseph Appiah and Edward Conteh Appiah and Conteh were among seven teenagers detained for killing 16-year-old schoolboy Nicholas Pearton. Pearton was chased, beaten and stabbed in Home Park recreation ground in Sydenham in May 2011. Appiah was given a life term for murder, along with Dale Green, then 17, and Lamarr Gordon, then 17. But only Green was found to have stabbed Pearton. Meanwhile, Conteh was convicted with three other boys of manslaughter. Campaigners believe Conteh and Appiah may benefit from Thursday’s ruling. Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig Updated on September 7, 2014 Source Source Derek Bentley - an innocent man The man you see here was hanged for a crime he didn't commit.

Everyone knew in court that it was another man who had done the deed. Although I say 'man', he only lived to the age of nineteen.I have always been fascinated by this event even though it took place before I was born. Today, we would probably have a nice politically correct label for him, but that wasn't the case in London in the 1950s. Derek had never been a lad who was in the best of health and this had the effect of disrupting his schooling. He was even turned down by the British army. In those days, it was compulsory for all young men aged between seventeen and twenty one to serve in the army for a year and a half. But even the army, who only demanded a certain level of intelligence, refused to have him in their ranks. Because he was illiterate, he could only perform the most menial work. Yet by 1953, everyone in England knew his name. On 28th January 1953, Derek Bentley, aged just nineteen, was hanged for murdering a policeman. And yet, he didn't kill the officer. The court knew that he hadn't. The judge and the jury knew that he hadn't committed the crime.

But at 9am on a cold January day, he was hanged by the authorities at Wandsworth Prison. How on earth could such a thing happen? By the time I heard this story, I was a teenager myself, and it was beyond my understanding. Everyone knew who was innocent and who was guilty and yet the wrong man had been hanged. Why? Playing cops and robbers With no meaningful job, and living in one of the poorer areas of London, Derek had little to occupy himself. He couldn't read to pass the time and he didn't have the money to be able to afford many forms of entertainment. A lot of the time he'd just hang out with neighboring teenagers. It was inevitable that the boys would get into trouble with the police. One of his friends was younger than him - just sixteen - but Christopher Craig was much brighter than Derek. He had a vivid imagination and admired the petty criminals in the area who seemed to him to be glamorous and adventurous gangsters. Chris even acquired a gun and a motley collection of bullets to enhance his self-image.

He planned a minor robbery - of a confectionery warehouse - and Derek accompanied him; maybe in his childish mind he was going to 'steal some sweets.' The boys climbed over the warehouse gates and onto the roof of the building. They were spotted and the police were called. Let him have it, Chris This is the sequence of events that followed. It's important to realize exactly what happened in the order in which the events took place. The police arrived on the scene. The boys tried to hide but Chris' bravado took over and taunted them in approved gangster-fashion - just like the movies Derek was apprehended almost immediately by an officer Derek then allegedly shouted something that was to cause him to be hanged for a crime he didn't commit. 'Let him have it, Chris.' Chris Craig fired the gun that he'd brought along with him. It grazed the shoulder of the police officer. Nevertheless, the officer chased Bentley and restrained him. Bentley ranted about the gun, telling the policeman that Chris had still got ammunition and trying to warn him Police reinforcements arrived. Almost at once, one of the men, Sidney Miles, was shot in the head by Craig.

Chris tried to escape by jumping off the roof, but was injured and arrested. Source Let Him Have It Let Him Have It is a film that is largely based on the Craig and Bentley story. It seems to be very close to the truth and the real facts. It is a warning about the faults with the death penalty but is also a very moving film where Craig and Bentley are well-portrayed. If ever there was a 'must-see' this is it. The court case at the Old Bailey Both boys were charged with murder. Despite what we would called today Derek's 'learning disabilities' he was judged to be fit for trial. The court believed that there was no question that the officer had been killed by Chris Craig. Chris however, was under the age of eighteen - he was still only sixteen years of age - and the law dictated that minors could not be hanged. He was sentenced to a prison term. Derek, on the other hand, was old enough to be executed and was sentenced to receive the death penalty. His crime really was simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Source A fruitless appeal Many were outraged by the verdict and an appeal against the death penalty was immediately launched.

It was pointed out that Derek didn't fire the gun, that he was not an adult when his mental capacities were taken into account and also that the evidence given about the bullet that killed the officer was inconclusive. A topic many people were discussing was his cry of 'let him have it, Chris.' Was this an appeal to Craig to surrender the weapon to the police? In other words 'let him have the gun, Chris.'? Or did he mean 'let him have a bullet Chris - fire.'? However, the appeal was unsuccessful and on 28th January, 1953, this teenager with learning difficulties and a mental age of below his actual years, was hanged for something everyone knew he didn't do. Source Aftermath He was finally granted a posthumous pardon forty years later. A pardon however does not remove the murder verdict. Campaigners working to clear his name continued to work and in 1998, the verdict was overturned. And what about Chris Craig? He served ten years in prison and since that time, he lived a peaceful and law abiding life.

When Derek was finally exonerated of the crime Chris, by then in his early sixties, welcomed the pardon and made a statement which included the following quote: "A day does not go by when I don't think about Derek and now his innocence has been proved with this judgment." Source Was Craig a victim too? It's easy to see Christopher Craig as the bad guy in this situation. After all, it was he who killed the police officer. But we must remember that he was only sixteen years old. Of course, he didn't get away scot-free - he received a jail term and served ten years. But can you imagine what it must have been like living with the knowledge that he wasn't just responsible for the police officer's death but for his friend's too? When he was released from jail he never committed a crime again and had a completely law-abiding life. However, he was still judged by the actions he had taken as a young teenager in post war London. Craig and Bentley video This video is from 1998, the year in which Bentley finally received a pardon. It was too late, of course. The video features footage from the time of the trial and includes an interview with Chris Craig.

This is the first part - when you've watched it, the second part is shown on the related videos screen. This is well worth watching. © 2013 Jackie Jackson What happened to Wallis Simpson after Edward died? Was she senile? Was she bedridden? Or was she imprisoned in her own home by her elderly French lawyer, Maitre Blum? And when did she really die? 32 Princess Margaret, now largely forgotten, was the sister of Queen Elizabeth the Second. Despite her royal position, she had a scandalous life that put later princesses to shame. Read her story. 47 Are you making the most of Pinterest? Did you know that some subjects are more popular on certain days of the week? Promoting your business or your creative work, timing is everything on Pinterest. Thoughts? 22 comments BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @RoadMonkey - indeed! Such a strange state of affairs though. RoadMonkey 2 years ago Back in those days, the age of adulthood was 21 years, so technically, he was still a minor. I imagine that there was such an outcry about a policeman getting shot and killed that someone had to pay the penalty - politics again!

BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @Adventuretravels: It truly isn't. Adventuretravels 2 years ago from London UK I used to teach in the east End of London as a drama teacher and this very sad story was something that really interested the kids - justice has been done - but it's no consolation is it. BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @Arachnea: It's real life story and is truly fascinating. Thanks! Arachnea 2 years ago from Texas USA Hi, BritFlorida. I'm tooling around looking for one of your lenses I saw over the weekend. Found this. Gonna have to come back and have a closer look. the movie looks interesting. BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @Old Navy Guy: So sad, isn't it? Thank goodness the system in the UK has now abolished hanging. Old Navy Guy 2 years ago What a sad tale. I had never heard of this one. Life doesn't always turn as we wish and this is certainly one of those times. BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @PAINTDRIPS: So sad, isn't it? Thank goodness those days are gone.

PAINTDRIPS 2 years ago from Fresno CA Wow, what a tragic case. I never heard of this one before but now I feel compelled to see the movie. Thanks for the education. BritFlorida 2 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @seahorse60: Amen. It seems unbelievable that this happened in living memory. seahorse60 2 years ago I hadn't heard of this case, so tragic. Thank goodness we've abolished the death sentence. BritFlorida 3 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @TransplantedSoul: That's very true but unfortunately it does, as you say. The 'ordinary' person is certainly at a disadvantage. TransplantedSoul 3 years ago The justice system does not always work. Being transparent and open is the best way. In some cases a clearly guity person has a trial that goes on for ever and ever... and others get a short guilty verdict. The OJ saga is an example of everything gone wrong. If it were you or I, that trial would have been over very quickly. Having fame or money should not influence the process/outcome!

BritFlorida 3 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @JohnTannahill: Yes that's true.Timothy Evans was also 'educationally disadvantaged' like Derek Bentley and yet their mental ages weren't taken into account. Things have changed in the last thirty years or so too. When Peter Sutcliffe was given life, it meant life. Just recently in the UK, as you know, there has been a case when a man responsible for killing six children will probably be a free man in fifteen years. JohnTannahill 3 years ago from Somewhere in England Timothy Evans and Ruth Ellis were probably more influential (in death) than Derek Bentley was in turning the tide against the death penalty in Britain. But, Bentley certainly underlined the fact that you can't bring an innocent person back when they're already hanged. BritFlorida 3 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @MarcellaCarlton: What a terrible statistic that it. Thanks so much for reading! MarcellaCarlton 3 years ago These tragedies happen all the time. Roughly 50% of the people convicted in the U.S.A. never committed the crimes they are accused of. Great lens!

BritFlorida 3 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @CampingmanNW: Thank you so much for visiting and reading. It's such a moving story. CampingmanNW 3 years ago A tragedy indeed. A court system too inflexible at the time to allow for anything but the pursuit of "Justice" for the officer killed. Sadly, a not uncommon occurrence even today. Nice lens BritFlorida 3 years ago from Fort Lauderdale Author @anonymous: Thank you so much, Dave. With the death penalty, there's no going back. A pardon is all very well, but what's done is done. It's truly appalling. anonymous 3 years ago This is such a tragic story. In two separate decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a mentally challenged person or a minor. Britflorida, another excellent lens! Bentley granted limited pardon: Sister vows to fight on after Home Secretary concedes that man hanged in 1953 should have been reprieved. Terry Kirby reports | The Independent Bentley granted limited pardon: Sister vows to fight on after Home Secretary concedes that man hanged in 1953 should have been reprieved.

Terry Kirby reports Friday 30 July 1993 23:02 BST Click to follow The Independent Online DEREK BENTLEY was yesterday given a limited posthumous pardon over his death sentence for the murder of a policeman 40 years ago. But his sister Iris last night vowed to fight on to prove his innocence. A tearful but triumphant Miss Bentley welcomed the decision by Michael Howard, the Home Secretary, to grant the limited pardon, but said she would still press for the case to be referred to the Court of Appeal. Miss Bentley, 61, said she was left 'shattered and shaking' by a decision which restored her faith in justice. She added: 'I have got somewhere at last but the fight goes on. I still want a complete pardon because my brother was not guilty of murder.' Mr Howard's decision - the first time such a limited pardon has been made - follows a landmark ruling in the High Court earlier this month which criticised his predecessor, Kenneth Clarke, for conceding the death sentence on Bentley was wrong, but making no formal acknowledge ment of the fact.

Last October, after considering a petition calling for Bentley to be pardoned, Mr Clarke said that, personally, he considered the then Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, should have granted a reprieve but there were no new grounds establishing his innocence. Official papers released by Mr Clarke showed that Sir David had rejected the advice of his senior civil servants in upholding the death sentence. Mr Howard said yesterday he agreed Bentley should have been reprieved but that had no bearing on the separate issue of a free pardon, which remained 'inappropriate'. The High Court had asked him to consider whether the Prerogative of Mercy could be exercised in a manner which reflected its conclusion that, 'even by the standards of 1953, the then Home Secretary's decision not to reprieve Derek Bentley was clearly wrong'. Mr Howard said: 'Having taken account of the court's judgment, I have decided in the wholly exceptional circumstances of this case to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen that a pardon limited to sentence should be granted.' Miss Bentley, who has campaigned for 40 years to clear her brother's name, heard yesterday's news while at a hairdresser's in south London. She will receive the official pardon document, signed by the Queen, today.

She said: 'I will take it with me when I die. I want it to be buried with me. I had no idea this was going to happen today. I had a strange dream last night. I saw Derek standing at a distance. I had never seen him like that before. He said to me: 'Not long now, sis'. It is really amazing.' Benedict Birnberg, solicitor for the family, said in a statement: 'Only a court can determine whether Derek was rightly convicted. The case for a review by the court of Derek's conviction is a strong one. His trial and conviction . . . was a travesty of justice even by the standards of 1953.' Mr Birnberg said the bias of the judge, Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, was apparent during the trial and in his subsequent communication to Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, urging the death penalty be carried out. Additionally, Bentley's mental state was not considered and he was badly defended by his counsel. He added: 'We now intend to prepare a detailed dossier for Mr Howard and ask him to refer the case to the court.

Until Derek has been cleared of the conviction the campaign which Iris has waged for 40 years will continue.' Bentley, 19, but with the mental age of 11, was hanged at Wandsworth prison in 1953 for the murder of a police officer during a break-in at a warehouse in Croydon, south London. Bentley was arrested, but Christopher Craig, 16, his accomplice and the dominant partner, fired the fatal shot. At the Old Bailey trial, it was claimed Bentley was guilty because he uttered the infamous and ambiguous words 'let him have it' before the shot was fired. Lord Goddard told the jury that when two people embark on a criminal enterprise which ends in murder they are both guilty in law, whoever actually fired the shot. Craig was reprieved because he was only 16. He served 10 years. New evidence rejected by Mr Clarke included the statements of both a police officer and Craig who disputed whether the crucial words had been said. It was also disputed whether Bentley had known that Craig was armed and whether his mental state allowed him to take responsibility for the other's actions. (Photograph omitted)

Question: Who was hanged for the murder of a policeman because his cry of "Let him have it" was ambiguous?
Answer: DEREK BENTLEY