Before the Supreme Court, the Crown pursued the argument of transferred malice as the justification for the liability of Gnango. In the alternative, the Crown sought to rely on parasitic accessory liability under the joint enterprise doctrine. It is very hard to see under what common law rule or legislation Gnango is guilty of murder. He is certainly guilty of other things - an affray for starters, as the Court of Appeal identified, not to mention a host of firearms offences. However, the mens rea for an affray is not the same as for a joint enterprise murder and the Supreme Court held, rightly, that it was not possible to separate the two mens reas and hold that there was a joint intention to have an affray, which was crime A, and that the