This section explores two important case studies that had major legal and social consequences in 20th-century Britain: Conscientious Objectors during the world wars and the Derek Bentley case.
Conscientious Objectors
Conscientious Objectors (COs) were individuals who refused to fight in wars due to religious, political, or moral beliefs. Their treatment by the government and the public changed significantly between the First and Second World Wars, reflecting broader shifts in British society’s views on personal liberty and civic duty.
Conscientious Objectors in the First World War (1914–1918)
Background and Legal Framework
In January 1916, the Military Service Act was passed by the British government, introducing conscription for the first time in British history. Initially, it applied to single men aged 18–41, but it was later extended to include married men.
The law included a "conscience clause", allowing individuals to apply for exemption from military service if they could prove that their objection was based on sincerely held moral, religious, or political beliefs.
Those who applied for exemption had to present their case to local Military Service Tribunals. These tribunals were usually composed of civilians, often lacking legal training, and their decisions could be inconsistent and biased.
Types of Objection and Outcomes
COs were usually divided into three categories:
Alternativists: Agreed to serve in non-combatant roles (e.g., stretcher-bearers, medical corps).
Non-combatants: Accepted roles within the military but not involving weapons.
Absolutists: Refused any involvement, including non-combatant work or anything seen as supporting the war effort.
Tribunal decisions varied:
Some COs were granted absolute exemption.
Many were told to perform alternative service like ambulance work or farming.
A significant number were imprisoned for refusing any service.
Punishment and Hardship
Those who refused to obey military orders, including absolutists, were court-martialed and often sentenced to hard labor in military prisons like Wandsworth and Wormwood Scrubs.
Conditions in these prisons were extremely harsh:
COs were subject to solitary confinement, reduced rations, and physical punishment.
Some were forcibly conscripted, sent to the front lines, and punished if they refused to fight.
In extreme cases, 35 COs were sentenced to death, although all were eventually reprieved by the government.
Public Perception and Social Impact
During WWI, COs were widely vilified by the press, politicians, and general public.
They were labeled as “shirkers,” “cowards,” and “traitors.”
Families of COs were also often harassed and ostracized.
After the war, many COs found it extremely difficult to reintegrate into society:
They were denied employment, especially in government jobs.
Some were excluded from voting or barred from public service for years.
Conscientious Objectors in the Second World War (1939–1945)
Policy Developments and Legal Protections
With the outbreak of WWII, conscription was reintroduced under the National Service (Armed Forces) Act 1939.
Like WWI, the act provided for legal exemption based on conscience, but the process was more structured and compassionate.
Tribunals were again used, but this time with clearer guidelines and more trained personnel, leading to greater consistency and fairness.
Service Options and Alternative Work
COs were given several options:
Non-combatant service in the armed forces.
Civilian work of national importance (e.g., farming, mining, ambulance driving, firefighting).
Complete exemption, though this was rarely granted.
Some COs served in the Friends Ambulance Unit, a Quaker-led organization that provided medical aid in war zones, often at great personal risk.
Changing Public Attitudes
Public attitudes toward COs in WWII were more understanding:
The memory of the horrors of WWI made people more sympathetic to those refusing to fight.
COs who worked in dangerous or demanding jobs were often respected, even if people didn’t agree with their stance.
However, some resentment persisted, especially among families who had lost loved ones in the war.
Long-Term Significance
The treatment of COs during WWII reflected a maturing democratic society, more willing to accept diversity of opinion and individual conscience.
The evolution from WWI to WWII demonstrates a growing belief in human rights and individual liberty, principles that would later be reflected in post-war documents like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).
The Derek Bentley Case
The trial and execution of Derek Bentley in 1953 became one of the most infamous miscarriages of justice in British legal history. It triggered a major shift in public opinion and contributed significantly to the abolition of the death penalty.
The Crime and Arrest
The Incident
On November 2, 1952, Derek Bentley (age 19) and Christopher Craig (age 16) attempted to break into a warehouse in Croydon, London.
Police arrived at the scene, and the boys fled to the roof of the building.
As police tried to arrest them, Bentley allegedly shouted “Let him have it, Chris!”
Craig then shot and killed Police Constable Sidney Miles.
Roles of the Individuals
Bentley was unarmed and had already been detained when the shot was fired.
Craig was carrying a revolver and was the one who pulled the trigger.
Because Craig was 16, he could not be executed under British law.
Bentley, however, was 19 and was charged with murder under the doctrine of joint enterprise.
The Trial and Execution
Court Proceedings
The prosecution argued that Bentley had incited Craig to shoot by saying “Let him have it,” treating it as a call to violence.
Bentley’s defense claimed the phrase was ambiguous and possibly meant “give him the gun.”
Bentley had significant learning disabilities:
He had a mental age of around 11.
His IQ was measured at below 70.
His written statement was used against him, even though it was likely obtained without proper legal support.
Verdict and Punishment
Both Bentley and Craig were found guilty, but only Bentley faced capital punishment.
On January 28, 1953, Bentley was hanged at Wandsworth Prison, despite widespread protests.
Public Outrage and National Reaction
Reaction from the Public
The case triggered national outrage, particularly among those who felt Bentley was mentally unfit for trial and execution.
Over 200,000 people signed petitions calling for clemency.
Demonstrations and public campaigns took place across the country.
The press, politicians, and religious leaders spoke out in support of Bentley.
Concerns Raised
The case raised critical issues:
The use of the death penalty on mentally impaired individuals.
The ambiguity of joint enterprise in legal accountability.
The fairness of police interrogation methods, especially for vulnerable suspects.
Long-Term Legal and Social Impact
Role in Ending Capital Punishment
The Bentley case was one of the most influential in the growing movement against the death penalty.
The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 suspended executions for murder in Britain and later abolished them permanently.
During parliamentary debates on the issue, Bentley’s case was frequently cited as a warning about irreversible miscarriages of justice.
Posthumous Justice
The campaign to clear Bentley’s name lasted decades:
In 1993, Bentley received a posthumous pardon for his execution, though not for the murder conviction itself.
In 1998, the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction, recognizing it as a grave miscarriage of justice.
The court stated that the trial judge had misdirected the jury and Bentley’s mental condition had not been properly considered.
Ongoing Relevance
The Bentley case remains a powerful example of the importance of justice reform.
It is often studied in legal education as a turning point in British criminal law.
The case helped shape modern legal standards on:
Fair trial rights
Treatment of mentally impaired defendants
Limits on police powers
These two case studies highlight how public opinion, individual rights, and legal procedures have evolved in modern Britain. They show that significant legal change can stem from public reaction to perceived injustice, and underscore the growing importance of human rights, fairness, and justice in the British legal system.
FAQ
Religious groups, particularly the Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends), played a crucial role in supporting conscientious objectors during both the First and Second World Wars. In WWI, the Quakers helped establish organizations such as the Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU), allowing COs to contribute through medical work rather than combat. They also advocated for fairer tribunal hearings and assisted objectors in navigating the legal system. In WWII, their role expanded. The Quakers and other pacifist religious groups provided legal aid, housing, moral support, and employment opportunities for COs assigned to civilian work. They also supported absolutists, who refused all forms of service, by campaigning for improved prison conditions and appealing on their behalf. Their consistent defense of COs helped influence a more humane approach by authorities in WWII, and their emphasis on moral integrity and peace highlighted the legitimacy of pacifist views. These efforts were significant in shaping evolving public and legal attitudes toward conscientious objection.
Media coverage played a pivotal role in shaping public opinion during and after the Derek Bentley case. At the time of the trial in 1952, some newspapers sensationalized the crime and emphasized Bentley’s alleged statement, “Let him have it,” framing him as partly responsible for the murder. However, as details about Bentley’s mental impairment, limited role in the crime, and the controversial nature of joint enterprise law became clearer, many journalists shifted their tone. The press began publishing sympathetic articles, highlighting Bentley’s low IQ, his dependent nature, and the perceived injustice of executing someone so vulnerable. After his execution in January 1953, media outlets widely criticized the decision, with headlines condemning the government’s refusal to grant a reprieve. The growing press scrutiny helped mobilize public protests and reinforced the argument that capital punishment could lead to irreversible miscarriages of justice. This shift in media tone significantly influenced the national debate over the death penalty.
While many conscientious objectors faced discrimination and hostility, some were eventually recognized and honored for their courageous service—particularly those who served in dangerous non-combatant roles. For example, members of the Friends Ambulance Unit (FAU) and the British Red Cross who were COs frequently risked their lives in active war zones, providing frontline medical care under fire. Though not awarded military honors, some received civilian awards for bravery or were mentioned in dispatches for their actions. In WWII, COs who served in bomb disposal units, fire services during the Blitz, or rescue teams during air raids also gained respect and were occasionally awarded civilian gallantry medals. However, formal state recognition was rare due to lingering societal prejudice. In later years, historical retrospectives and documentaries helped restore their reputations, and in some local communities, COs were publicly acknowledged for their principled stand. Over time, their contributions were increasingly viewed as acts of courage rooted in deep moral conviction.
Joint enterprise, also known as common purpose, is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to be convicted of a crime committed by another person if they were found to have encouraged, assisted, or intended the crime to happen. In Derek Bentley’s case, although he did not fire the fatal shot, the prosecution argued that his words—“Let him have it, Chris”—amounted to incitement. The court interpreted the phrase as an instruction to shoot, despite its ambiguity. Bentley’s presence at the scene and his association with Craig, combined with the phrase, were enough under joint enterprise law to convict him of murder. The doctrine did not require proof that Bentley intended for Miles to be killed or even that he foresaw the shooting. Critics later argued that the law was applied too rigidly and failed to consider Bentley’s mental limitations and subordinate role. The case helped spark legal debate over the fairness and scope of joint enterprise, leading to reforms in how it is applied today.
Post-war political movements, particularly those centered on civil liberties and justice reform, played a critical role in revisiting the Derek Bentley case. In the 1960s and 1970s, groups such as the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) and the Howard League for Penal Reform began to scrutinize the fairness of Bentley’s trial and execution. These organizations highlighted flaws in police procedures, judicial bias, and the treatment of mentally impaired defendants. Politicians from across party lines raised the case in Parliament, using it as an example of why capital punishment was untenable. In the 1980s and 1990s, growing interest in historical miscarriages of justice—including the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases—renewed attention to Bentley’s story. Campaigns by his family, especially his sister Iris Bentley, were amplified by legal activists and journalists, eventually prompting the Court of Appeal to reopen the case. These political and social efforts culminated in Bentley’s conviction being quashed in 1998, demonstrating the enduring impact of advocacy and reform movements.
Practice Questions
Explain one way in which the treatment of conscientious objectors during the First World War was different from their treatment during the Second World War.
During the First World War, conscientious objectors were often treated harshly, facing imprisonment, forced labor, and social hostility. Military tribunals rarely accepted their objections and labeled them as cowards. In contrast, during the Second World War, treatment was more lenient and respectful. Tribunals were more structured and understanding, with many objectors allowed to contribute to the war effort through non-combatant roles or civilian work of national importance. Public attitudes had also softened, with some acceptance of individual conscience, showing a significant change in the government's and society’s approach between the two wars.
Explain one way in which the Derek Bentley case was significant in the development of British justice.
The Derek Bentley case was significant because it played a key role in the movement to abolish the death penalty in Britain. Bentley’s execution, despite his mental impairment and limited involvement in the murder, sparked widespread public outcry and raised concerns about the fairness of capital punishment. His case highlighted flaws in the legal system, particularly the use of joint enterprise and how vulnerable defendants were treated. The public reaction and campaigning eventually influenced Parliament to suspend and later abolish the death penalty in 1965, showing the lasting legal impact of Bentley’s case.
