Talk:Derek Bentley

To Encourage the Others

This section like the work of a conspiracy theorist. It states that Craig was "firing from a distance of just under 40 feet". According to D.C. Fairfax in Lord Bingham's judgment of 1998, Craig was only 6 feet away. Whilst there are some discrepancies, 40 feet is highly unlikely and definitely unprovable. On top of this, if the gun shot came from anyone other than Craig, why was his only defence a lack of intent, and not instead the fact that someone else shot Miles?

On what basis do you claim, "40 feet is highly unlikely"? Yallop reproduced the police's own architecture plan of the rooftop; the distance between the back of the lifthead, where Craig was, and the stairhead, where Craig says Fairfax was when he fired at him, is 39-45 feet. More to the point, the foresics evidence is entirely consistent with Fairfax being hit by a ricochet from 40 feet away, and not a direct shot at 6 feet, as Fairfax claimed. As to Craig's defence, the fact is that he accepted that he had shot Miles, because that's what everybody told him he had done. It was Yallop, years later, who came up with the theory that Miles had been shot by someone else in the confusion, as it more logically explained the forensic evidence. Nick Cooper 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be pretty nice if the article made it clear that this was what Yallop said rather than either fact or our claims. NicM 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

I saw both the original BBC transmission of Yallop's play To Encourage The Others and the repeat a year or so later. The repeat left out the most 'telling', but in reality the most bogus, bit of supposed evidence. In the original transmission, the authoritative-sounding narrator told us about forensic evidence that PC Miles was killed by a bullet of .32 to .38 calibre, and said that 'it was impossible even to load such a round into Craig's revolver, let alone fire it.' (We were shown a pair of hands holding a British Army Colt .45 and loading a round that dropped straight through the cylinder and fell out.) The narrator then added that the only other people with guns on that rooftop '...were policemen.' And we were shown photos of actors dressed as policemen holding, erm, Lee-Enfield .303 rifles, as I recall. I don't think any officers were issued Lee-Enfields on that night, and I don't think any armed officers were on the rooftop when PC Miles was killed.

When the show was repeated, that bit was dropped, and instead the narrator told us that according to the forensic expert PC Miles was killed 'by a bullet of large calibre. He did not say what calibre.'

And that's just misdirection. Even Christopher Craig has never denied that he fired the shot that killed PC Miles. He just says he wasn't aiming at him, he was only firing to scare the police. Loaded with home-adapted sub-calibre rounds, and with a sawn-off barrel, Craig's gun was so inaccurate that the police later found it could throw six feet either way at 20 yards. (That isn't necessarily an excuse in law, though. The intent to threaten with a deadly weapon is still malice, so it may still be murder.)

The article is wrong to mention a .32 police round being recovered from the rooftop as if this suggests that a police officer accidentally shot PC Miles. It is in evidence (and it is recounted in the Court of Appeal's ruling) that, after PC Miles was killed, DC Fairfax escorted Bentley downstairs and put him in a police car, and was then issued a firearm and went back up to the rooftop to try and arrest Craig. DC Fairfax fired two rounds at Craig and missed both times. Craig reloaded, but still ran out of ammunition, dived off the roof and hurt himself, and was then arrested. The finding of a spent police round on the rooftop does not mean that a police officer shot PC Miles. It just means DC Fairfax fired at Craig and missed. Craig himself has always admitted that it was he who shot PC Miles, even though he wasn't aiming at him. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The reason for the difference between the first and all subsequent repeat broadcasts is clearly explained in the final paragraph of the section. It is you who are wrong is sugegstign that the article should not mention the .32 round found on the roof, because it is done so in the context of the section covering Yallop's book and the Play for Today adaptation of it. Yallop introduces the evidence, teherfore is can be approprately included here.

Yallop established that at least six - and potentially many more - police firearms were issued on the night at Croydon police station, and that witnesses neighbouring the scene described armed officers gaining access via their homes to vantage point from which they could fire on the roof of the warehouse. That the dramatisation shows officers with Lee-Enfield rifles is neither here nor there; most if anot all of the police firearms issued will have been the same .32 semi-automatic pistols Fairfax used (which is accurate depicted in the dramatisation). It certainly is Yallop's suggestion that Yallop was hit with a bullet from such a gun, rather than Craig's, and there is no rational reason not to present that theory here.

It was also established at the trial that a substantial number of gunshots were heard around the time PC Miles what hit than could not possibly have come from Craig's inaccurate sawn-off revolver. Contrary to your assertion, Craig did not reload (some of the ammunition he used was not rimmed, and so the spent cartridges could only be removed by being pushed out of the cylinder from the other side with a suitable instrument).

Craig accepted the accusation that he shot Miles only because nobody else at the time suggested otherwise. He only - many years later - expressed surprise to Yallop that he managed to hit him, even though he (Craig) had been aiming his shots over the garden of an adjacent garden, not directly at the stairhead Miles emerged from, and hit him between the eyes when all logic says the officer would not have been facing in Craig's direction. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

No.

Try reading what the Court of Appeal which overturned Bentley's conviction actually said.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1998/2516.html

It doesn't matter what a shyster like Yallop says. Only four police officers were present at the scene when PC Miles was killed (PC Harrison and DC Fairfax who arrived in the van, PC MacDonald and PC Miles who arrived in the wireless car), and they were not armed. The initial call to police by a neighbour at 9.15pm did not report any firearm, only a couple of young men acting suspiciously, and it was not until officers confronted Craig and Bentley that the police knew Craig had a gun. There was not enough time, between the arrival of the four police officers around 9.25pm and the call for medical assistance for PC Miles at 9.57pm, for the approval of the issue of firearms by a senior officer and for firearms to be brought to the scene, and no other officers were present when PC Miles was killed.

There were no armed police officers present when PC Miles was killed by Christopher Craig. David Yallop just made that up.

And Christopher Craig has never denied killing PC Miles. David Yallop just made that up too.

The article is quite wrong to claim that the finding of a spent .32 police round on the rooftop means that a police officer could have shot PC Miles. It was some time after the killing of PC Miles that DC Fairfax went back to the rooftop with a .32 automatic (because the issue of police firearms had been authorised by then, and the guns had arrived, but only after, and as a result of, the killing of PC Miles by Christopher Craig some time earlier) and fired a couple of missed shots at Christopher Craig.

The Court of Appeal also explains that, according to the physical evidence, Craig must have reloaded at some point. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Craig

After he was released, Craig changed his name and worked as a plumber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.174.243 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When Craig jumped off the roof, he said, "Give my love to Stella" or the like. This implied that he was trying to commit suicide, not to escape. This also probably means he was an Emo, so i would keep him away from any blades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.37.209 (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Craig had a knife, as well as a gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.37.209 (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Christopher Craig alive? Werdnawerdna (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've not heard anything to the contrary. Booglamay (talk) - 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Craig was born in 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Pardon

The introduction claims Bentley was granted a partial pardon in 1993, and a full pardon in 1998. This incorrect. There was a pardon in 1993, and a quashing of the conviction in 1998.

The 1993 royal pardon was not "in respect of the sentence of death passed upon him and carried out. However in English law this did not quash his conviction for murder". A pardon is not a quashing of a conviction - only a court can do that. These are two separate things. Accordingly the 1998 Court of Appeal quashing of the conviction for murder was not a pardon.

Incidentally, there was never any question about there having been a murder, and Bentley having been part of the criminal conspiracy that led to it. His trial may not have been fair by modern standards, but I am not sure that the outcome would have been any different at a retrial.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'pardon' section is completely uncited and a little misleading. Bentley was pardoned by the Queen in respect of his sentence in 1993. That did not have the effect of quashing his conviction. His conviction was then quashed in 1998. The court's ruling can be read here:--

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1998/2516.html&query=Derek+bentley&method=all

It's R v Derek William Bentley (deceased), in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, EWCA Crim 2516, 30 July 1998, No.97/7533/S1

The Court of Appeal found, as it happens, that a jury rightly directed would have been entitled to convict Derek Bentley of the murder of PC Miles. However, the court found that Lord Goddard misdirected the jury, first on the standard of proof, second on the burden of proof, and third by directly inviting the jury to believe the word of police officers simply because they were police officers. The court also found that the summing-up was unbalanced, because Lord Goddard failed to invite the jury to consider points made by the defence, and that Lord Goddard failed to instruct the jury properly on the law of joint enterprise, in particular on the question of whether, at the moment PC Miles was shot by Craig, the joint enterprise was over and finished in Bentley's mind. At that time Bentley, under arrest but not under restraint, was just standing there and waiting for the police to take him down, making no effort to escape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khamba Tendal (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

So if I understand correctly, if the trial had been done by the book, the result would have been the same (death by hanging) ? With maybe the consequence of the law not changing and the death penalty not being abolished as it was ? Aesma (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That is correct. Bentley was guilty, engineering a felony in which somebody died. The concern some had was that he had not been convicted according to form, which could lead to a miscarriage of justice in some other case.

The death penalty would likely have been abolished anyway, as public opinion was turning against it. But that can not be considered, only the doing of justice to each individual, as the case comes.

So, watch the justice system, and make sure the rights of all are protected. But don’t worry about the felon, Bentley. Let him have it! 2601:647:6680:4450:900B:9DF4:422D:CE99 (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's more that the Court of Appeal cannot second-guess the trial jury or re-try the case on the evidence, it can only deal with points of law. Had the jury been rightly directed, they might still have convicted Bentley, but they might not, and this cannot be known, so the conviction was legally unsafe. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Citation provided referred to refusal of debate in Parliament

As I'm editting anonymously, I'm providing an entry here to notify the community I'm using a contempory news article to substantiate claims made towards the end of the page. This can be found on the Guardian website here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.79.248 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Let him have it

The article says 'The jury at the trial found Bentley guilty based on the prosecution's interpretation of the ambiguous phrase "Let him have it".' Do we know this? The case for regarding the crime as a joint enterprise (the basis of Bentley's conviction) does not turn on what Bentley meant with these words, or whether he said them at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.223.40 (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true and the article is wrong there. We do not know what the jury's thinking was, because jurors are forbidden to reveal it. That phrase is an issue that the defence and the press chose to fasten on to, perhaps guessing that the police witnesses had invented it because the actual murderer, Craig, was too young to hang and they wanted due retribution for PC Miles' murder, so they exaggerated the case against Bentley as the accomplice. But as far as I know there are no reliable sources on the jury's deliberations, so that claim is unsourced speculation. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Homicide Act 1957

Surely this article is wrong when it says the 1957 Act introduced discretionary sentencing. The jury could bring in a verdict of either capital or non capital murder, but once they'd done so, the judge had no discretion in whether to pass the death sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.223.102 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Derek Bentley case → Derek Bentley – Article is clearly about Derek Bentley and not just the case The Midnite Wolf (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. So well-known as to not require the suffix. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lines for a protest speech about derek bentley

For drama homework 77.103.169.103 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)