R v Bentley [1953] 1 QB 1 (CCA)

Facts

• Derek Bentley, aged 19, and Christopher Craig, aged 16, attempted to burglarize a warehouse.
• During the attempted burglary, Christopher Craig shot and killed Police Constable Sidney Miles.
• Bentley did not fire the fatal shot but was present at the scene and arrested.
• Bentley was charged and convicted as an accomplice to murder under the principle of joint enterprise, despite not directly committing the act of violence.
• The conviction relied on evidence that Bentley had encouraged Craig, with particular contention over Bentley’s alleged statement "let him have it."
• Bentley was executed for murder, while Craig, being a minor, was not sentenced to death.
• At the time, murder was a capital crime, and the mandatory penalty was death.

Issues

1. Whether Bentley could be held legally responsible for murder under joint enterprise despite not firing the fatal shot.
2. Whether the doctrine of constructive malice properly applied to Bentley’s actions in the context of his participation in the burglary.
3. Whether the court adequately considered Bentley’s mental capacity in determining his criminal liability.
4. Whether the legal framework at the time allowed for injustices in cases involving joint enterprise and constructive malice.

Decision

• Bentley was found guilty of murder as an accomplice due to his involvement in the joint enterprise and alleged encouragement of Craig’s actions.
• The principle of constructive malice was applied, holding Bentley responsible for the foreseeable lethal consequences of the crime, regardless of direct intent to kill.
• The judge’s misdirection and Bentley’s mental capacity were later contested but not accepted at the time of trial.
• Bentley was sentenced to death and executed.
• Years later, Bentley received a royal pardon in 1993, and his conviction was quashed in 1998, recognizing the injustice he suffered.

Legal Principles

• The doctrine of joint enterprise holds participants liable for crimes committed by others in the furtherance of a common purpose, given shared intention or awareness.
• Constructive malice allowed for murder convictions where a death occurred during the commission of another felony, even without intent to kill.
• Section 1 of the Homicide Act 1957 abolished constructive malice, requiring a closer connection between intent and consequence in murder cases.
• The Homicide Act 1957 introduced the partial defence of diminished responsibility, recognizing mental health considerations for murder charges.
• The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 removed the death penalty for murder, reflecting concerns raised by cases such as Bentley’s.

Conclusion

The case of R v Bentley stands as a critical example of the harsh application of joint enterprise and constructive malice, ultimately prompting legislative reforms through the Homicide Act 1957 and the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. Bentley’s posthumous pardon and the quashing of his conviction highlight the recognition of injustice and the evolving safeguards in English criminal law.