Supreme Court judgment in Gnango found liability in a re-analysis of the “victim rule” rather than alter existing joint enterprise law, as had been feared.

14 December 2011

The Supreme Court handed down judgment in R v Gnango [2011] UKSC 59, a case heard in July 2011 on appeal by the prosecution from the Court of Appeal. Garden Court North Chambers’ Nina Grahame, led by Sallie Bennett-Jenkins QC, appeared for the Respondent.

The defendant’s conviction for murder was quashed by the Court of Appeal in July 2010. In a case which was legally and factually unique in UK law, and by a majority, The Supreme Court today allowed the prosecution’s appeal and reinstated the murder conviction. (Lord Phillips, Lord Judge, Lord Wilson, Lord Brown, Lord Clarke and Lord Dyson; Lord Kerr dissenting).

Although the Supreme Court allowed the prosecution appeal, their Lordships endorsed much of the crucial reasoning, if not the ruling, of the Court of Appeal. There had been concern that the Supreme Court might adopt the approach of the trial judge, further broadening existing joint enterprise principles to permit a “common purpose” to be established between parties who, in fact, act with diametrically opposed purposes.

In the event, their Lordships took a very different route to establish liability in this case, clearly acknowledging the fact that public policy issues informed their decision. A re-analysis of what is commonly referred to as “the victim rule” enabled them to find that Gnango had been a party to his own attempted murder; therefore, in the context of a gunfight, where a bullet intended for him actually fatally injured a passerby, he shared the transferred malice liability of his attacker.

Nina was instructed by Mackesys Solicitors, London.

Share this

Chambers news

Chambers news

I’m afraid the home has served notice

Options and property owners In the Court of Protection, once a lack of capacity is established, the judge only gets to choose between options that...

Chambers news

Successful challenge of Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020

The following has been accepted by the Defendants: The Amendment Regulations were unlawful on the basis that the requirement to consult and duty of inquiry...

Chambers news

CCRC’s independence challenged

In R (Warner) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 1894 (Admin), the Divisional Court considered a challenge to the independence of the Criminal Cases...

Chambers news

Responsibility of States under International Law to Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang, China

Bar Human Rights Committee launches Briefing Paper on the Responsibility of States to the Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims, co-authored by Aarif Abraham

Sign up to our mailing list

Our mailing list is dedicated to professionals with an interest in our work.

Sign up