A woman who was handed a sizeable envelope by her husband outside their family home has been cleared of drug conspiracy in a case based on circumstantial evidence which fell short of concrete proof.

Eleanor Tracy Agius was targeted by criminal prosecution for conspiracy to traffic drugs, aggravated drug possession and money laundering activities after being caught on video receiving a parcel handed over by her husband outside their Qormi home.

The handing over was witnessed by a police surveillance team who had been tipped off about an alleged drug consignment to Stiano Agius, the accused’s husband, back in November 2007.

Police searched the couple’s home one day after the surveillance operation and found 1153 grams of white powder, later certified as cocaine, inside an unlocked dining-room drawer normally used by the husband. The search had also yielded Lm31,000 (€72,200) in cash, part of them stacked in a safe the key to which had been produced by Ms Agius.

Criminal action was instituted against the couple, with the husband registering an admission and landing an 11-year jail term.

As proceedings continued against the wife, who denied the charges, it emerged that in the day that police had been surveying the couple’s home, Ms Agius had been away from work on sick leave when her husband had phoned, asking her to meet him outside the house.

When he called, he had handed over a sizeable brown envelope, merely telling his wife to put it in ‘his drawer’, which she duly did without giving it a second thought since it had been normal for the couple to receive loads of parcels containing oversized clothing for the obese 6XL husband and other items which they regularly purchased on the internet for themselves, relatives and friends.

It was only the following day that the woman had received a call, while out running errands, from a police Inspector who told her to go home where, upon her return, she was informed of the drug find.

The woman had cooperated with investigators, producing the key to the family safe and never realising that she too was being targeted by criminal investigation.

After hearing both the accused and her husband, who also chose to testify in his wife’s case, the court observed that the couple had been consistent in their versions from their early statement to the police up to their deposition in court, five years after the incident.

The man had declared that he had told no-one of the drugs.

The prosecution had based its case against the woman on circumstantial evidence which allegedly showed, in a clear and unequivocal manner, that she knew of her husband’s illicit dealings and acted as accomplice.

However, the crucial evidence consisted of the footage showing her take the parcel handed over by her husband, with no further evidence to prove that she actually had any control over or knowledge of the contents thereof.

“Why was the search not conducted on the same day as the surveillance operation?” the court asked, adding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the envelope seen in the footage was the same as that found a day later inside the couple’s dining room.

The court, presided over by magistrate Neville Camilleri, also observed that unlike her husband, who had been a part-time chauffeur and dealer in cars and horses, the woman had a full-time and long-standing job, had taken a loan to purchase the matrimonial home in her name and was also the registered owner of the couple’s two cars.

The prosecution had failed to prove that the woman knew that the money brought home by her husband was other than that resulting from his regular dealings in cars and horses, the court said.

After discarding the couple’s statements, which had been released without the assistance of a lawyer and analysing all other evidence produced, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proved the charges against the accused who, unlike her husband, was no familiar face with the police and possessed “a perfectly clean criminal record.”

There was “nothing based on concrete proof in the records of the case,” the court concluded, pronouncing an acquittal, whilst ordering the destruction of the drug.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Marion Camilleri were defence counsel.