[The appellant] tells you that he had a bad methylamphetamine habit at the relevant time, but was not a supplier or a dealer. And he says this is evidenced by the drugs found [by] the WA Police at his place. He says he's never hidden that, never hidden the fact from the police that he was a drug user. He says he's not a drug dealer.
He says he used Sean Walsh and this other person AM as his suppliers. He says the 2.8 grams came from Walsh. He says that the dealings by text or in person with Truslove all had to do with [his] IT consultancy and Truslove's high-level computer gaming needs and occasionally purely social purposes.
He says the unusual hours of these communications and visits are explicable by their mutually unusual working habits. He says that all texts and phone calls relate to these legitimate matters and there's nothing sinister about them. He says he did not supply Truslove with the drugs on 2 August or at any other time. He says he called in on 2 August to sort out an issue of latency or lag and he might have dropped off a card with some instructions on it, although he also thinks that might have been the day before.
He says that the texts after he left relate to Truslove's ongoing complaints about his router connection speeds. He says he was fed up and he offered Truslove a discount of $500 a unit just to break the Gordian knot, as it were, just to shut the bloke up and get rid of him.
He says the lies to the police were told because he was panicking, that they'd threatened him and he was obsessing about keeping his wife out of the loop and her not knowing that he was still doing drugs. He says he just wasn't thinking clearly enough and the main thing he wanted to do was just make sure his wife didn't find out. He says he used the Nokia phone for his legitimate business dealings with Truslove, even though the Nokia was part of his secret life, because Truslove was on his wife's list of people who were persona non grata.
It is submitted by [defence counsel] on his behalf that anyone could have supplied Truslove with the drugs that the police found. He was a dealer and in contact with numerous people in addition to [the appellant]. He says there's no forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, linking ... [the appellant] to any of the evidence at Truslove's place.
He points to the fact that the drug dog Bella didn't ... sniff out any place ... around the house where methylamphetamine had been found. That might be wrong about the shed. I'll be corrected on that. Bella might have found the drugs in the shed, but there's no evidence that Bella reacted to the smell of methylamphetamine inside the house. And it's said, well, that means that this package of Truslove's couldn't have been in that house because Bella would have smelt it.
And it's suggested that people like the owner of phone 833 could have been involved, that the language of 833 after the police raid on the 1st [of August] was the sort of language of a very angry drug dealer - I called him a pissed-off drug dealer because I like people to use ordinary language in courtrooms - and this is to be compared with Truslove and [the appellant's] text messages about beers and routers and things like that. And also the fact that as far as the police were concerned [the appellant] was not known to them as a possible drug dealer.
So 833, furious; 441, talking about routers and beers and things like that. And, perhaps, it is suggested 833 might reasonably be the person who supplied the drugs to - in other words, delivered the drugs, because this case is all about who delivered them, it's not who owns them, who delivered them. But it's suggested that it looks like 833 might be the owner and 833 might have delivered them as well. If 833 owns them, why wouldn't 833 deliver them as well? And she was on the police watch list as well. The police knew a bit about her and well, why not her? It's suggested that is a reasonable inference that you can consider (ts 546 - 548).