R v Gilmour [2000] 2 Cr App R. 407

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 both intended that Defendant 1 should set V’s house on fire, Defendant 1 intending that V should be killed, whereas Defendant 2 intended merely that V should be frightened.

Defendant 2 didn’t know of Defendant 1’s intention. V died.

HL held that it was possible for Defendant 2’s manslaughter conviction to be sustained despite Defendant 1 being convicted for a greater crime.

The HL said there was no convincing reason why if someone was facilitating an act whose details he knew and had the necessary corresponding mens rea that he should not be convicted of a crime.

It would be morally wrong for Defendant 2 to escape all liability.