Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of Derek Bentley

Running head: MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE OF DEREK BENTLEY
Miscarriage of Justice in the Case of Derek Bentley
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE OF DEREK BENTLEY
The ones who are given the duty to deliver justice carried out a heinous act of
injustice in the case of Derek Bentley. In this case, Derek Bentley, 19 years old epileptic
boy, who was held to have murdered a police officer was ordered to be hanged, however
acquitted posthumous. The paper strives to point fingers on the severe miscarriage of
justice that took place at London in 1952 when the legal justice system failed a poor illiterate
boy who needed rehabilitation and not death for leading a better life. The study would try to
find out whether Derek had a Mens Rea that led him to Actus Reus or not. Counter
arguments on the judgment is critically presented in the study. Lastly, a brief similarity
would be drawn along with the Mark Duggan case, which is of similar nature.
Tuft and Nakken (2017) in their book laid down the entire fact of the case minutely. It
says that Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig, 19 and 16 years old boys who are inept
criminals, attempted a burglary in a factory, which was reported by a neighbour. When the
police officer asked them to surrender, Chris pulled out a gun and shot him. Derek had no
knowledge about the arm and instead when Chris pointed the gun at the police officer, he had
demanded, “let him have it”. Watson (2016) argued that this famous sentence has been
interpreted in several ways over the passage of time. Some opined that it meant Derek asked
Chris to “give” the police officer the ‘bullet’ that he deserve for restraining them. While, the
majority comprehended it as a surrender . Lord Goddard, the Judge for the case bailed upon
the former interpretation and ordered Derek to be hanged.
On analysing the case and its fact thoroughly, it can be deduced that Derek Bentley
had no such mens rea that could have driven him to kill the police officer. The only actus
reus that is prevalent in the matter would include the act of the boys to attempt to rob the
factory on the first place. In addition, it has been proved that Derek had no idea that Chris

2MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE OF DEREK BENTLEY
was carrying a firearm along with him. Along with, it was evident that Derek was illiterate, a
little epileptic and retarded which makes it quite impossible for him to arrange for a gun and
take the decision of killing a police officer. Lea (2015) said that a strong and cruel mind is
imperative for such an act, which Derek did not have. Therefore, no mens rea or actus rea can
be found against Derek in this case which could suggest the presence of criminal liability for
him.
As argued by Yallop (2014), An unfortunate finding suggest that a psychiatrist
appointed by the court when the trail was going on had held that Derek was not suffering
from mental retardation or epilepsy when he “encouraged” Chris to shoot the police officer.
Lord Goddard banked upon this report and delivered his judgment of hanging Derek. While,
there were other psychiatrist and child behavioural psychologist who claimed that Derek
was “borderline retarded” and was a “coward” when it came to ‘fights’ in school. There was
no way he could have meant to kill a person and by the sentence “let him have it”, he meant
to give up and surrender the gun to the police officer. This incorrect interpretation drove him
to death penalty, which should have been reconsidered by the Judge (Cody 2014).
In R. v. Derek Bentley (Deceased) [1998] EWCA Crim 2516 Lord Goddard defied
the decision of the jury who although pronounced that Derek was guilty yet suggested
mercy for the retarded boy. In addition, it was found that Chris’s gun worked inaccurately
after a range of six feet which cancels the allegation of Chris shooting the police officer who
was standing way far off than six feet. It was suggested that there were possibility that the
office was actually killed by the bullet shot by one of the other office present. However, the
bullet that killed the office was never found and matched with the respective guns in
question.