They were the words Sharon Bell had been waiting to hear for almost two years.

She and her sister Aileen had both spent every day of Farrow’s Supreme Court trial sitting quietly in the public gallery, and could contain themselves no longer.

‘‘Yes!’’ they cried out,  falling into each other’s arms as they realised their sister’s killer had finally been brought to justice.

‘‘I feel a whole weight lift off me, a lightness and tingling flowing through me,’’ Ms Bell said moments after the decision was announced.

‘‘Just to hear that word – guilty – this really is the best outcome we could have hoped for.’’

On the morning of April 11, 2013, Farrow made what should have been one of his regular visits to Ms Stevens’ Bligh Street home to purchase drugs.

But in a matter of hours Ms Stevens was dead, having been stabbed by Farrow twice in the neck and once in the chest, the last wound piercing her heart and puncturing a lung.

Her body was bundled in sheets and put in the boot of her  car, which Farrow later drove erratically through several  suburbs before dumping  at Corrimal.

Meantime,  witnesses had reported Farrow’s driving to police, prompting them to discover the vehicle and make initial inquiries.

However, it wasn’t until a second inspection was carried out on the vehicle later that evening that Ms Stevens’ body was found.

Farrow was quickly noted as a person of interest, and was arrested six days later following a stand-off with police at Kembla Grange.

During a subsequent interview he said he didn’t remember any of the events of April 11 but said he believed he was the killer, because he had in his possession items belonging to Ms Stevens that she would not have handed over to him willingly.

‘‘There’s only one way I could possibly have gotten hold of that jewellery and that was by killing her and taking it,’’ he said.

However, in court Farrow pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, claiming his mind was so ‘‘diseased’’ at the time he should not be held criminally responsible for his actions.

The court heard he was paranoid Ms Stevens was going to give him bad drugs, known as a ‘‘hot shot’’, because of a recent falling out he’d had with one of her friends.

However, in court on Friday, Justice Stephen Rothman said Farrow was responsible for what he had done, finding that his actions both before and after the murder bore all the hallmarks of a person who understood that what he’d done was wrong.

He said the degree of planning by Farrow, which included dozens of scribblings in notebooks referring to lists of items needed, was inconsistent with the irrational behaviour displayed by people who suffer from psychosis.

‘‘The fact that the accused thoroughly cleaned the deceased’s house after the offence, destroyed his clothes, [Ms Stevens’] clothes and the knife, went into hiding, didn’t want his friend to watch the news and tried to escape from the police showed that the accused knew that his act was wrong according to the standards of ordinary people in the community,’’ Justice Rothman said.

Ms Bell said she wanted people to know her sister was much more than the drug dealer she had been portrayed as throughout the trial.

‘‘She was a loving, beautiful person,’’ Ms Bell said.

‘‘She was a fantastic aunty; she would take the kids and teach them roller skating, fishing, surfing.

‘‘I miss her so much.’’

Farrow will be sentenced on March 13.