Click here to obtain a Word version of this document for adaptation
[This charge should be added if evidence has been presented which shows possible alternative bases of responsibility for a particular offence, and the bases do not involve materially different issues or consequences. For example, manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act or manslaughter by gross negligence.
It should also be added if the prosecution has argued that the accused could be liable as either a principal or an accessory: See Unanimous and Majority Verdicts.]
Because of the nature of this case, I need to give you some more directions about how this requirement for unanimity works in relation to [insert relevant offence].
The prosecution has argued that there are two different bases upon which you can find NOA guilty of this offence.
Firstly, the prosecution has argued that NOA is guilty of [insert offence] because [he/she] [insert summary of one basis for guilty].
Alternatively, the prosecution has argued that NOA is guilty of [insert offence] because [he/she] [insert summary of alternative basis].
Although you must all reach the same decision in relation to this offence – either guilty or not guilty – you do not need to all rely on the same basis in reaching that decision. For example, seven of you might find NOA guilty of [insert offence] due to [insert one basis], while the other five of you might find NOA guilty due to [insert alternative basis]. That does not matter – as long as you all reach the same verdict in relation to [insert offence]. In such a situation, your verdict is still considered to be unanimous, despite your different reasoning.
What is important is that you all agree on the final decision. Your verdict of guilty or not guilty in relation to [insert offence] must be unanimous.
Last updated: 1 February 2006