A lawyer for a woman found to have a gun concealed in her ceiling told the Supreme Court there was no evidence to prove she had known of the weapon.

While Desiree O’Connor declined to speak in her own defence, Marc Daniels, her attorney, said the Crown’s case left more questions than answers, and suggested that the defendant’s trust had been exploited.

Mr Daniels said: “What we know is, cunning foxes will use people. They will use who they see is good or maybe who they see as weak or trusting. That’s reality.”

However, the Crown urged the jury to use their common sense to find that Ms O’Connor knew about both the firearm and drugs found in her bedside drawer, and had attempted to steer police away from others who may have been involved.

Kael London, for the Crown, said: “I went through the interview and I counted at least 14 times the defendant said she knew it’s not them. I never suspected him, I never suspected them.”

Ms O’Connor denied possessing a firearm — Walther PPQ .45 handgun — and eight rounds of ammunition without a licence, on September 13, 2024.

She further denied possessing 54.62 grams of cocaine freebase, worth up to $17,050, with intent to supply.

The court previously heard that an electrician hired to work at Ms O’Connor’s Warwick home had discovered a bag in the ceiling above her bedroom, found to contain a firearm and ammunition in heat-sealed plastic.

A subsequent search of the home by police revealed a plastic jar containing a chalklike substance, confirmed to be cocaine freebase, in her bedside drawer.

In a police interview conducted the day after the discoveries, Ms O’Connor said that while the bag that was found to contain the gun was hers and had belonged to her mother, she had no knowledge about the drugs or the firearm, or how they came to be in her home.

However, she acknowledged that one of her tenants — whom she said she had an intimate relationship with until June 2024 — had a key to her home, while a second would be allowed to do his laundry in the house.

Ms O’Connor also said that she had a number of workmen come into the house for jobs and would sometimes leave the doors unlocked.

As the trial continued yesterday, the jury watched the conclusion of the recorded interview in which she said she did not believe either of the tenants would want to hurt her.

Ms O’Connor said: “Obviously I’m too trusting to anyone in the world. I always give the benefit of the doubt to everyone out of the goodness of my heart.”

The court also heard that the firearm, ammunition and the jar of cocaine were forensically tested, with none of the results linking the items with Ms O’Connor.

However, DNA was found on the lid of the jar with the results linked to the profile of the tenant who had a key to Ms O’Connor’s home.

Delivering his closing speech, Mr London told the court that while Ms O’Connor said her children were her top priority, she gave a man with a past firearm conviction free rein of the home where they stayed.

Mr London said: “You know you have two minor children inside of your home. You are so concerned for their safety, yet you have allowed someone with a known conviction for a firearm unfettered access to your home. Just think about that.”

He argued that it was not believable for Ms O’Connor not to know what was inside her bedroom drawer.

He maintained that, because the bag found to contain the weapon had sentimental value, she would have noticed if it had disappeared.

Mr Daniels responded that if Ms O’Connor knew the firearm was in her ceiling, she would almost certainly have moved it before allowing an electrician to climb up there.

He said: “Anyone with any common sense would take that step and set it aside.”

Mr Daniels said that people could turn a blind eye and believe those they cared about. He added that witnesses for the Crown spoke to Ms O’Connor being someone willing to give the shirt off her back to those in need.

He added that there was no evidence that Ms O’Connor had lied to anyone or had known that anyone had stashed the items in her home.

The trial continues before Puisne Judge Alan Richards.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case