[2] The Crown alleged that on 30 July 2004 three carloads of people drove from Rangiora to Culverden in order to exact retribution for an incident involving Wanhalla's sister.

Armed (with cricket wickets, metal pipe and bottles) and disguised, Wanhalla and his associates entered the victims' house and inflicted "significant injuries" on three victims as well as damaging the property, its contents and three vehicles parked outside.

Evidence against Wanhalla included a blood stain, "almost certainly came from one of the victims", on his sweatshirt and glass fragments, similar to a broken television at the property, in his shoes.

[6] In his summing up in the District Court Judge Abbott had told the jury, amongst other directions on the standard of proof, that, "the Crown does not have to prove a charge to the point of absolute scientific or mathematical certainty, in other words beyond all doubt or any shadow of doubt.

[11] President William Young delivered the majority judgment which included a model set of jury directions the Court was "inclined to view that Judges should explain the concept of proof beyond reasonable doubt in these terms".

On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to prove anything to an absolute certainty when dealing with the reconstruction of past events and the Crown does not have to do so.