R v Gnango

Where two people agree to a shoot out, and one accidentally kills a bystander, the other may be guilty of murder.

Citation
[2011] UKSC 59, [2012] 1 AC 827
Court
Supreme Court
Year
2011
Subject
Criminal Law
Topic
Inchoate offences and accessorial liability

Facts

Armel Gnango and another man, known as Bandana Man, had a gunfight in a car park in London. Both fired at each other, intending to kill or cause serious injury. One of Bandana Man's bullets missed Gnango and killed Magda Pniewska, a young woman walking home from work. Gnango was convicted of murder, on the basis that he had agreed with Bandana Man to fight a gunfight, and was guilty under the doctrine of transferred malice. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction.

Legal principle

The Supreme Court restored the conviction, by a majority of six to one. The majority held that Gnango was guilty of murder, although the justices gave different reasons. Lord Phillips and Lord Judge said that, by agreeing to the shoot out, Gnango was guilty as a secondary party of the attempted murder of himself by Bandana Man, and the doctrine of transferred malice then made him guilty of the murder of Ms Pniewska. Lord Brown and Lord Clarke said that Gnango was guilty as a principal, because the agreement to shoot at each other meant that both were jointly responsible for the death. Lord Kerr dissented.

Related cases on inchoate offences and accessorial liability

Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.

Back to all law cases

This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.

Contact Us

Enquire about our bespoke academic solutions