Where the prosecution relies on multiple alternative particulars of deceit or fraudulent means in a fraud charge under s 409(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (WA), the trial judge must direct the jury that they must unanimously agree on at least one (and the same one) particular. The use of the collective pronoun 'you' in directions, without an express unanimity instruction, is insufficient to convey this requirement. The proviso cannot cure the absence of such a direction where there is a discernible risk that the jury convicted without unanimous agreement on the same particular, as the absence may have deprived the accused of a fair chance of acquittal.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.