This charge may be used in all trials that were commenced on or after 29 June 2015.
This charge should only be given where:
The judge is satisfied that the accused has suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the delay between the alleged offence and trial; and
A party has requested a direction on forensic disadvantage and there are not good reasons for not giving the requested direction; or
A party has not requested a direction on forensic disadvantage, but there are substantial and compelling reasons to give the direction despite the absence of a request.
As you will be aware, the offences in this trial are alleged to have occurred [indicate date(s) or date range(s)]. NOC first complained to NOW about the offending on [indicate dates]. This means there was a delay of [indicate delay] before NOC told anybody about [the details of] these alleged offences.
I must now inform you of a [further] significant consequence of this delay. This is the impact this delay has had on NOA’s ability to defend himself/herself against these charges.
In assessing the evidence in this case you must have regard to the following significant considerations. Because of this delay:
[List the specific forensic disadvantages suffered by the accused due to the consequences of delay. Only those disadvantages actually suffered in the circumstances of the case should be included. Possibilities include:
NOA lost the opportunity to make enquiries at, or close to, the time of the alleged incident[s].
NOA lost the ability to explore the alleged circumstances in detail soon after the offences were said to have occurred. Such an exploration may have uncovered evidence which would have [thrown doubt upon the complainant’s allegations/confirmed NOA’s denial of the charges].
NOA lost the means of testing NOC’s allegations which would have been available had there been no delay in prosecution.
NOC is not able to identify the occasion on which the offences are alleged to have occurred with any specificity. This makes it difficult for NOA to raise any defence other than a simple denial.
NOC’s own recollection of the events has faded, so s/he has not been able to provide many specific details of the alleged offences. This [also] makes it difficult for NOA to raise any defence other than a simple denial.
NOC could not be medically examined close to the time of the alleged offence, to provide evidence contradicting the allegations (referring also to expert evidence establishing the probability of detectable injury in the circumstances described by the complainant).
Witnesses who may have been able to give evidence contradicting the complainant’s allegation [are no longer available/can no longer remember relevant details].]
I instruct you as a direction of law that you must take these disadvantages into consideration when determining whether the prosecution has proved NOA’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 This charge is designed for use in cases where there was a delay in making the complaint. If the relevant delay arose after the complaint was made the charge will need to be modified accordingly.