R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59

Facts

  • Gnango and a person known as "Bandana Man" were engaged in a gunfight in a public parking lot.
  • Bandana Man, intending to kill Gnango, fired a shot that mistakenly killed Magda Pniewska, an innocent bystander.
  • Gnango did not fire the fatal shot but participated actively in the shootout.
  • Gnango was charged and convicted of murder in relation to Ms. Pniewska's death.

Issues

  1. Whether Gnango could be held criminally liable for the murder of an unintended victim, despite not firing the fatal shot.
  2. Whether liability could be established under the doctrines of joint enterprise and/or transferred intent.
  3. Whether participating in the gunfight constituted aiding and abetting the attempted murder of himself, rendering Gnango liable for the resulting death under transferred intent principles.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court found Gnango guilty of murder, but not solely on the basis of joint enterprise.
  • Liability was established under the rule of transferred intent and for aiding and encouraging Bandana Man’s attempted murder of Gnango.
  • The Court reasoned that by engaging in the gunfight, Gnango helped and encouraged Bandana Man’s actions, rendering him legally responsible for the bystander’s death.
  • The Court clarified that transferred intent applies even when the intended and actual victims are both involved in the criminal act.

Legal Principles

  • Transferred intent permits criminal liability to be transferred from an intended victim to an unintended one where the defendant's actions fulfill the actus reus and mens rea for the original intended offence.
  • Complicity principles hold that aiding and encouraging a criminal act can result in liability for any foreseeable outcomes during the commission of the act.
  • The boundaries of joint enterprise liability and transferred intent were expanded to cover situations where the intended victim is also participating in the illegal conduct.
  • Comparison with precedent cases, such as R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 and R v Saunders and Archer (1573) 2 Plowd 473, demonstrates the evolution of the transferred intent doctrine.

Conclusion

R v Gnango clarified and expanded the application of transferred intent and complicity in English criminal law, confirming that participants in mutual violence can be held liable for unintended deaths, even where the victim was not the intended target. The case sets a significant precedent for liability in complex causation scenarios involving multiple actors and cross-fire.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal