A woman accused of having a firearm and cocaine was cleared of all charges this afternoon by a Supreme Court jury.

After four hours of deliberation, the jury found Desiree O’Connor not guilty of possessing a handgun, eight rounds of ammunition and cocaine freebase by a unanimous verdict.

While the court heard the items were discovered inside her Warwick home in September 2014, Ms O’Connor maintained that she had no knowledge of them or how they came to be at the property.

Ms O’Connor appeared to fight back tears as the verdict was read with supporters and family members watching from the public gallery.

Puisne Judge Alan Richards noted that the trial was Ms O’Connor’s second for the charges, with the first ending abruptly this year after it was discovered that Donte Allen, a niece of the defendant, had contacted two jurors in an attempt to bolster the case against her.

He said that Allen was arrested and has subsequently been jailed for the offences, but the incident had caused unnecessary costs for both Ms O’Connor and the public purse.

Mr Justice Richards added: “I hope two things are clearly understood. First, that our system of jury trials is robust and that tampering can and will be detected.

“Second, that anyone who is found to have sought to tamper with a criminal trial will suffer serious consequences.”

During the brief trial, the Supreme Court heard that William Tull, a self-employed electrician, had gone to Ms O’Connor’s Warwick home on September 13, 2024, to address an electrical problem.

However, entering the ceiling above her bedroom he discovered a bag which contained a handgun and eight rounds of ammunition in vacuum-sealed plastic.

Police later attended the home and, during a search of the property by a canine unit, officers found a jar containing a chalklike substance in a bedside cabinet.

Tests subsequently confirmed that the substance was 54.62 grams of cocaine freebase, worth up to $17,050 if sold on the streets of Bermuda.

Ms O’Connor was arrested and, during a police interview on September 14, she denied any knowledge of any of the contraband or how it came into her home.

She said that she had never seen the weapon before, but recognised the bag that it was found in as one that belonged to her late mother, stating that she had not used it since the spring.

Ms O’Connor also steadfastly denied any knowledge of the drugs, stating: “I have not seen that stuff in my life. If I knew what it was, then it would have gone in the trash.”

During the interview she said that one of her tenants, whom she had an on-and-off intimate relationship with until June 2024, had a key to her home, and a second tenant was sometimes allowed to use her house to do laundry.

However, Ms O’Connor said that she did not believe either of them to be responsible for the items, stating that she did not believe they would want to hurt her.

Ms O’Connor said that she also often left the house unlocked to allow workmen to access the building.

She 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 items found in the home were tested, but no forensic evidence was found linking them to Ms O’Connor.

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

The court also heard that Ms O’Connor had given investigators the pass codes to her electronic devices, but nothing was found on them linking her to firearms or drugs.

Kael London, for the Crown, told jurors to use their common sense to find that Ms O’Connor had to be aware of the items in her own home.

He also argued that she had attempted to steer police away from her tenants who had “unfettered” access to her house.

However, Marc Daniels, for Ms O’Connor, said that the case left more questions than answers, arguing that if she had known about the firearm in the ceiling, she would have certainly moved it before the electrician came.

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

Mr Daniels also noted that prosecution witnesses had praised Ms O’Connor’s character, describing her as someone who would give the shirt off her back for someone in need.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers