A Kambah woman has been acquitted of drug trafficking in the ACT Supreme Court after police found drugs and about $40,000 in cash at her home during a raid in January 2015.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The woman, Sharon Ann Stott, faced a judge-only trial this week on six charges, pleading guilty to three charges linked to the raid and not guilty to other charges including trafficking in a controlled substance.
Stott and a man who seems to have since disappeared, Charlie Vo, were arrested when police officers found about $40,000 in cash, methylamphetamine and cannabis hidden throughout the home during the 2015 raid.
Justice Michael Elkaim found Stott not guilty of trafficking in a controlled substance not cannabis, possessing the suspected proceeds of crime and possessing a prohibited substance.
He also gave her seven days to pay two $50 fines for possessing ammunition and cultivating one cannabis plant.
But because she had already served 10 months in prison, he imposed no further sentence on the charge of unlawful possession of stolen goods, despite it carrying a potential six months' term.
Justice Elkaim described Stott, who has previously been convicted of drug trafficking and unlawful confinement in other cases, as having "an unenviable record".
Stott's defence barrister Steve Whybrow said while she pleaded guilty to possessing stolen goods, the stolen ipad found in the home during the raid, was brought into the house some time before the raid and she had been assured it had not been stolen.
Police officers arrested Stott and Mr Vo when they found about $40,000 in cash, packets of methylamphetamine and cannabis hidden throughout the home during the 2015 raid.
In closing arguments on Wednesday morning, Mr Whybrow argued Stott was unaware the drugs were in her house at the time of the raid and the cash was only there because Mr Vo had travelled to Canberra from Sydney to buy a four-wheel drive car from her.
Mr Whybrow said that Mr Vo was "a known drug dealer" and there were three possible theories as to why the drugs were there: that Mr Vo brought the drugs to sell, that Mr Vo was in Canberra to buy drugs or that Mr Vo had simply brought the drugs and money with him for another purpose.
Mr Whybrow said given there were three possible explanations, Stott could not be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt because the possibility remained that Mr Vo had brought the drugs and money along with him without Stott's knowledge.
Justice Elkaim asked Mr Whybrow to explain what happened during a two hour window between Mr Vo arriving at the house and the police arriving there, which could have shed more light on who legally possessed the drugs, but he was unable to explain.
He said while he had not called the only other person at the house at the time to give evidence in the trial, Stott's son, the prosecution also did not call him as a witness and the prosecution bore responsibility to prove the charges.
But prosecutor Dean Sahu Khan said he had tried, but her son had refused to give evidence at the trial and Mr Vo, the only other person there at the time, had "disappeared".
