D1 and D2 both intended that D1 should set V’s house on fire, D1 intending that V should be killed, whereas D2 intended merely that V should be frightened. D2 didn’t know of D1’s intention. V died. HL held that it was possible for D2’s manslaughter conviction to be sustained despite D1 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 D2 to escape all liability.