Where the prosecution alleges alternative bases of criminal liability (principal offender vs complicity by assistance under s 323(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958) sharing the same evidential substructure, no unanimity direction is required. Evidence of possession of cannabis by-product at a nearby premises owned by the accused is admissible as circumstantial evidence of involvement in a commercial cultivation operation, provided appropriate protective directions are given. The provision of false lease documents to police to distance oneself from a crime scene is capable of constituting incriminating conduct under the Jury Directions Act 2015. Section 324B of the Crimes Act 1958 accommodates a verdict where the jury is satisfied of guilt but unable to determine whether the accused was the principal or a person involved in the commission of the offence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.