## 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.


R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59