Where the Crown alleges a single theft occurred on one of two alternative dates (when proceeds were banked or when the accused commenced withdrawing them), the jury need only be unanimous on the essential ingredient of dishonest appropriation, not on the precise date. The date of appropriation is not an essential aspect of the charge requiring unanimity. In directing on dishonesty in theft cases, the trial judge must convey that the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not hold the honest belief claimed, but this need not be stated in any particular verbal formula provided the charge as a whole sufficiently conveys the requirement.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.