fact beyond reasonable doubt. This particular fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt not because it alone proves the guilt of [ the accused ] but because it is an essential step in the reasoning that the Crown asks you to follow in order to establish its case. Unless that fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the reasoning relied upon by the Crown must fail. As I have already said, in relation to facts which are not essential to your process of reasoning, you would not consider those facts you find established by the evidence in isolation, but you would have regard to them as a whole. If you were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the existence of the essential fact, then you can take that fact together with all the other facts you find established and ask whether you can draw an inference or conclusion in favour of the Crown from those facts considered as a whole. If such a conclusion that the Crown asks you to find is not available then the Crown's circumstantial case fails. But it is for you to determine what conclusion, if any, can reasonably be drawn from the established facts, and then consider whether there is any other reasonable explanation for those facts other than that of [ the accused's ] guilt. If there is no other explanation consistent with all the established facts considered together, then it would be open to you to convict [ the accused ]. If, however, you