'Innocent' Timothy Engstrom was 'liar's most useful tool' in drug-filled digger case, jury told

Those famous words were repeated to a jury on Monday as Timothy John Engstrom's counsel argued the Bungendore landscaper had been used by his lying friend and business partner to extract imported cocaine from an excavator.

Engstrom, 38, is on trial in Sydney's Downing Centre District Court after pleading not guilty to a charge of attempting to possess a commercial quantity of a border-controlled drug.

He denies committing the offence in concert with close friend Adam Phillip Hunter, 37, with whom he co-directed Bungendore Landscape Supplies.

There is no dispute that in mid-2019, that business bought an excavator that was found to contain about 276kg of pure cocaine when it arrived in Australia from South Africa.

But Engstrom denies either knowing a border-controlled drug was hidden inside the machine's boom arm, or being reckless about that fact, prior to his July 2019 arrest.

He has told the jury he became aware something was secreted in the machine three days earlier, when he and Hunter spoke at a weighbridge about the imported excavator.

Engstrom claims to have told Hunter he thought the digger, which was plagued by mechanical problems, was "a heap of shit".

MORE COURT AND CRIME COVERAGE:

His evidence is that his "heart sank" when Hunter informed him, during this conversation, that "he had to get something out of the machine".

"It's not something stupid, like heroin?" Engstrom claims he asked Hunter, adding that his business partner reassured him this was not the case and insisted it was "all good".

Hidden cameras installed by police on the excavator and inside the landscaping business show Engstrom, on the day of his arrest, using an angle grinder to cut open the digger.

Quizzed last week about why he had done this, Engstrom admitted knowing something untoward was in the excavator but denied thinking it was drugs in light of Hunter's reassurance.

He said his job was to "simply access the arm and leave the rest to [Hunter]" while he went and had a cup of tea.

But in his closing address to the jury on Monday, prosecutor Adam McGrath argued Engstrom's story of Hunter deceiving him about the presence of drugs was "implausible".

Mr McGrath pointed to evidence that included Engstrom having fist-bumped his trusted friend after cutting into the excavator's arm, telling jurors this was "a celebratory action".

He reminded jurors that surveillance device audio had also recorded Engstrom saying "f--- yeah", arguing these behaviours were indicative of the 38-year-old's "exhilaration at the danger and anticipation of obtaining drugs from an imported excavator".

Mr McGrath told the jury Engstrom's explanation about being tired from cutting into the excavator, and his evidence that he "regularly fist bumps people", was not believable.

While the prosecutor cast doubt on whether the conversation at the weighbridge had even happened, he said Hunter's supposedly "brief denial" about drugs being in the digger would not have satisfied Engstrom.

Mr McGrath told the jury Engstrom was "highly intelligent" and "no simpleton", arguing the 38-year-old would not have just "turned a blind eye" to what was inside the machine.

He pointed out that Engstrom's own version of events was one in which the 38-year-old's first instinct had been that the 20-tonne machine contained heroin, alleging this proved the accused had at least been reckless about the fact there was a different illicit drug inside.

However, Engstrom's barrister told the jury his client had trusted Hunter's purported denial.

"When you trust someone you trust them, rightly or wrongly," the barrister said on Monday.

Defence counsel added that Engstrom's evidence stacked up with material obtained by police through listening devices, hidden cameras and telephone intercepts.

"Mr Hunter was a liar, but Mr Engstrom had every reason to trust him," defence counsel said.

"You now know that he shouldn't have trusted him, but he did."

Counsel concluded by saying he would not insult the intelligence of jurors by pretending the evidence in the trial was incapable of creating "real suspicion" about Engstrom's guilt.

"But here's the thing about suspicion," he told the jury.

"It's not satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt."

Following both barristers' addresses, Judge Gina O'Rourke SC told jurors she would sum up the case on Tuesday morning and hopefully have them deliberating by morning tea.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: