Seeking unanimous consensus in collective decision-making situations creates the tendency for individuals within a group to vote strategically against their private information especially as the size of the group gets larger. In jury trials, this leads to the paradox that the more demanding the hurdle for conviction is, the more likely it is that a jury will convict an innocent defendant. We challenge these established results, by exploring voting behaviour when collective decision-making occurs based on information, the reliability of which is ambiguous. With ambiguity-averse voters, who are MaxMin Expected Utility Maximizers, we demonstrate that unanimity voting is compatible with instances of informative voting, outperforming other voting rules, such as majority voting.