Four little words. That’s all it took to send a nineteen-year-old with the mental age of a child to the gallows in 1953. If you’ve seen the Let Him Have It movie, you know exactly the kind of knot it leaves in your stomach. It’s not just a "true crime" flick. It’s a brutal, frustrating look at a British justice system that was, frankly, looking for a scapegoat.
Released in 1991 and directed by Peter Medak, the film tackles the infamous case of Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig. It’s gritty. It's bleak. Most importantly, it’s a piece of cinema that actually changed how people thought about the law. You don't get many movies that can claim they helped secure a posthumous royal pardon, but this one did.
The Night Everything Went Wrong
Let's look at the facts because the movie sticks remarkably close to them. It’s November 1952. Two boys are on a roof in Croydon. Derek Bentley, played with heartbreaking vulnerability by Christopher Eccleston, is nineteen but has an IQ of about 66. He’s a follower. Christopher Craig, played by Paul Reynolds, is only sixteen, but he’s the one with the gun and the bravado.
They were there to rob a warehouse. Instead, they ended up surrounded by police.
When Sergeant Frederick Fairfax told Craig to hand over the gun, Bentley allegedly shouted, "Let him have it, Chris!"
Did he mean "hand over the gun" or "shoot him"? That’s the pivot point of the entire tragedy. Craig pulled the trigger, wounding Fairfax. Later, after Bentley was already under arrest and effectively in police custody, Craig shot and killed PC Sidney Miles. Because of the "joint enterprise" laws of the time, Bentley was just as liable for the murder as the boy who pulled the trigger.
Actually, he was more liable in the eyes of the executioner. Because Craig was only sixteen, he was too young to be hanged. Bentley, at nineteen, was fair game.
Christopher Eccleston and the Weight of the Role
Honestly, without Eccleston, this movie might have just been another courtroom drama. This was one of his earliest big roles, and you can see the raw talent. He doesn't play Bentley as a villain or a hero; he plays him as a confused kid who wants to be liked. There’s a specific scene where he’s being interrogated, and you can see the sheer lack of comprehension in his eyes. He doesn't understand that the adults in the room are building a scaffold for him.
The film does a great job of showing the contrast between the two boys. Craig is fueled by American gangster movies and a desire for notoriety. Bentley just wanted a friend.
💡 You might also like: How to Watch The Wolf and the Lion Without Getting Lost in the Wild
Medak uses a very specific visual style here. It’s grey. It’s damp. You can almost smell the coal smoke and the desperation of post-war London. It doesn't feel like a Hollywood production. It feels like a documentary that accidentally captured a murder.
The Legal Nightmare of Joint Enterprise
The Let Him Have It movie is essentially a massive critique of "Common Purpose" or joint enterprise. This is a legal doctrine where if two people embark on a crime together, they are both responsible for everything that happens, even if one didn't intend for a killing to occur.
It’s a controversial law that still exists in various forms today.
In the film, the trial scenes are agonizing. The judge, Lord Goddard (played with terrifying coldness by Casper Wrede), clearly had no sympathy for the "illiterate" Bentley. The movie suggests that the establishment wanted to send a message. Post-war Britain was seeing a rise in "Teddy Boy" culture and juvenile delinquency. Bentley was the sacrificial lamb meant to scare the youth back into line.
- The Jury's Dilemma: The jury actually recommended mercy. They found him guilty but begged the Home Secretary for clemency.
- The Home Secretary's Refusal: David Maxwell Fyfe ignored the recommendation. He refused to stay the execution.
- The Public Outcry: Protests broke out outside Wandsworth Prison on the morning of the hanging. People knew this was wrong even then.
The film doesn't shy away from the execution itself. It’s clinical and horrifying. It’s the silence that gets you.
Why the Movie Matters Now
You might wonder why a film from 1991 about a case from 1952 is still relevant. Well, for starters, it played a massive role in the real-life campaign to clear Bentley's name. His sister, Iris Bentley, spent her entire life fighting for him. She's a central character in the movie, played by Clare Holman.
The film helped keep the case in the public eye during the late 80s and early 90s.
In 1993, just two years after the movie came out, Bentley was granted a partial pardon. But that wasn't enough for the family. They wanted the murder conviction quashed entirely. In 1998, the Court of Appeal finally did it. They ruled that the original trial was a "textbook model" of how a judge should not behave.
📖 Related: Is Lincoln Lawyer Coming Back? Mickey Haller's Next Move Explained
Lord Goddard’s summing up was deemed biased and unfair. The court acknowledged that Bentley’s mental age and the circumstances of his arrest meant he never should have been executed.
Breaking Down the "Let Him Have It" Phrase
The title is the crux of the whole thing. In the movie, the police testify that Bentley said it. Bentley always denied saying it.
Think about the ambiguity for a second. Even if he did say it, the English language is a minefield.
- "Let him have it" = Give him the gun.
- "Let him have it" = Shoot him.
The prosecution argued for the latter. The defense argued for the former. But the movie subtly suggests a third option: maybe he never said it at all. Some historians and researchers have suggested the police fabricated the quote to ensure a conviction for the killing of one of their own. It’s a heavy thought. It changes the movie from a tragedy of errors into a story of systemic corruption.
Cinematic Style and Historical Accuracy
The Let Him Have It movie avoids the "polished" look of many period pieces. It uses a lot of handheld camera work during the roof sequences to create a sense of chaos. You feel the vertigo. You feel the cold.
The script by Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (who, weirdly enough, went on to write a bunch of James Bond movies) is sparse. They don't over-explain. They let the injustice speak for itself.
There are a few minor historical tweaks for dramatic effect, but for the most part, it’s a terrifyingly accurate reconstruction. The portrayal of the Bentley family home—the cramped quarters, the simple love they had for Derek—contrasts sharply with the sterile, imposing architecture of the Old Bailey. It highlights the class divide that often dictated who lived and who died in the 1950s.
Real-World Impact and E-E-A-T
When we talk about the expertise behind this analysis, it’s important to reference the work of Iris Bentley herself. Her book, Wicked Beyond Belief, is a harrowing companion to the film. Legal experts like Lord Bingham, who presided over the 1998 appeal, have essentially confirmed the movie's "thesis"—that the trial was a miscarriage of justice.
👉 See also: Tim Dillon: I'm Your Mother Explained (Simply)
The movie is often used in law schools and sociology courses to discuss the death penalty and joint enterprise. It’s a primary example of how media can influence legal outcomes.
- Director: Peter Medak
- Key Actors: Christopher Eccleston, Paul Reynolds, Tom Courtenay
- Impact: Contributed to the 1998 quashing of the conviction
- Rating: Usually R or 15 depending on the country, due to the intense themes and the execution scene
What to Do After Watching
If the Let Him Have It movie left you feeling frustrated, you aren't alone. It’s designed to do that. It’s a film that demands you look at the fine print of the law.
If you want to dive deeper, don't just stop at the credits.
First, look up the 1998 Court of Appeal judgment. It’s a fascinating, if dense, read that lays out exactly where the 1953 trial failed. It’s a masterclass in identifying judicial bias.
Second, compare this to the case of Ruth Ellis, the last woman hanged in Britain. Both cases were instrumental in the eventual abolition of the death penalty in the UK in 1965.
Third, check out Christopher Eccleston's later interviews about the role. He has often spoken about how the weight of playing a real person who was so clearly wronged stayed with him for years. It wasn't just another job for the cast; it was a mission.
The movie is currently available on various streaming platforms and is a staple of British cinema history. Watch it not just for the acting, which is superb, but as a reminder of what happens when a "fair trial" becomes a foregone conclusion.
The best way to honor the history is to understand the nuance. The law isn't just a set of books; it's a living thing that can make mistakes. The story of Derek Bentley is the ultimate proof of that. If you’re interested in the intersection of film and social change, this is the gold standard.
Go watch the film, then read the actual trial transcripts. The difference between the two—and the similarities—will tell you everything you need to know about how stories are told and how lives are lost.
Next Steps for Further Research:
- Research the "Joint Enterprise Not Guilty by Association" (JENGbA) campaign to see how these laws are being challenged in modern courts.
- Read Wicked Beyond Belief by Iris Bentley for the family's direct perspective on the decade-long fight for justice.
- Watch the 1950s newsreel footage of the case (available in many digital archives) to see the real-time public reaction to Bentley's execution.