Global InformationR v Gnango information
| R v Gnango | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | Regina (appellant) v Armel Gnango (respondent) |
| Decided | 14 December 2011 |
| Citation(s) | [2011] UKSC 59, [2012] 2 WLR 17, [2012] 1 Cr App R 18 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | R v Gnango [2010] EWCA Crim 1691 (26 July 2010) (Thomas, Hooper, Hughes & Gross LJJ and Hedley J) |
| Appealed from | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Appealed to | Supreme Court |
| Subsequent action(s) | R v Armel Gnango [2012] EWCA Crim 77 (Hughes VP, Treacy & Blair JJ) |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Judge, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony, Lord Dyson, Lord Wilson of Culworth |
| Case opinions | |
| If (1) D1 and D2 voluntarily engage in fighting each other, each intending to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the other and each foreseeing that the other has the reciprocal intention, and if (2) D1 mistakenly kills V in the course of the fight, D2 also is guilty of the offence of murdering V. | |
| Decision by | Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers & Lord Judge, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony and Lord Dyson (Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore dissenting) |
| Keywords | |
| Accessories; Affray; Intention; Joint enterprise; Murder; Transferred malice; Victims | |
Regina v Armel Gnango [2011] UKSC 59 is the leading English criminal law case on the interaction of joint enterprise, transferred malice, and exemption from criminal liability where a party to what would normally be a crime is the victim of it. The Supreme Court held, restoring Gnango's conviction for the murder of Magda Pniewska, that he was guilty of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had not fired the shot which killed Pniewska during the shoot out which led to her death, and that the fatal shot had been fired by his opponent in an attempt to kill him. The judgment of the Supreme Court has been criticised over the alleged extent to which it was designed to mollify public opinion, and in the context of debates over the nature of the doctrine of joint enterprise.