R V Gnango Case Report

1. Read the judgment of R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59.

Provide a report of the case which includes the following information: (497 words)

The case R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59 deals with joint enterprise; transferred malice and exemption from liability where a party to what would normally be a crime is a victim of it. In brief summary the facts of the case are that two men, Gnango (G) and another man who is only known as “Bandana Man” (B) engaged in a gunfight which resulted in the death of the passer-by, Magda Pniewska (P). Although the shot which lead to P’s death came from B, G, the defendant, was subsequently convicted of the murder of P on the basis of joint enterprise as well as the attempted murder of B. G appealed against his conviction. His conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, which held that in this case there had been no common purpose as G and B had been acting “independently and antagonistically” instead of acting together or in concert. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court held that “By agreeing to the shoot out, the defendant aided and abetted B[andana Man] in this attempted murder. (iii) B[andana Man] accidentally killed [Miss] P[niewska] instead of the defendant. Under the doctrine of transferred malice he was guilty of her murder. (iv) The doctrine of transferred malice applied equally to the defendant as aider and abetter of B[andana Man's] attempted murder. He also was guilty of [Miss] P[niewska's] murder.”

This decision was held by a majority of 6:1. The dissenting opinion came from Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore who was of the opinion that there were major difficulties proving that G's actions were an effective cause of P’s death as B would have had to have fired the fatal shot as a result of G firing on him. As B fired on G first, “it seems to me highly questionable (at least) that Gnango's returning fire caused B to fire again. The first shot surely betokened an intention on the part of B to fire at and to hit Gnango, irrespective of whether...