Appeals Over Mushroom Murders Reach Victoria's Highest Court
Melbourne's Court of Appeal has begun hearing two challenges arising from the conviction and sentencing of Erin Patterson, the woman found guilty of killing three relatives and attempting to kill a fourth with a meal laced with death cap mushrooms. Patterson, 51, watched proceedings via video link from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, appearing in a royal blue jumper, as her lawyers sought to overturn her convictions and the Director of Public Prosecutions argued her 33-year non-parole period was "manifestly inadequate".
'Catastrophic' Jury Sequestration Raises Concerns
Patterson's new barrister, Richard Edney, opened the defence case by attacking the integrity of the trial over the decision to sequester jurors in the same hotel as the lead detective, members of the prosecution team, and a key police witness while they deliberated. Edney described the situation as "catastrophic," arguing it could have resulted in inappropriate communication or subconscious influence, and amounted to "a fundamental irregularity" that denied his client a fair trial. He conceded there was no evidence of actual communication between jurors and the parties, but maintained the failure of process should lead to a retrial "so that justice can not only be done but be seen to be done."
Brendan Kissane, the Director of Public Prosecutions, acknowledged the arrangement was regrettable but said it "happened, as far as we can tell… by accident," adding that the evidence pointed towards there being no communication.
Right to Silence Compromised, Defence Argues
Patterson's legal team also argued that her right to silence was compromised due to the trial judge's ruling excluding mushroom photos from 2020 found on her SD card. Barrister Veronika Drago submitted that the defence wanted to use the images to show Patterson had a longstanding interest in foraging for mushrooms. Without them, she said, the only way jurors could hear evidence of foraging was for Patterson to give evidence herself, which "fundamentally altered what she was forced to address while she was giving evidence." Drago argued this compelled Patterson to testify and thereby compromised her right to silence.
Other appeal grounds included challenges to cell tower evidence and iNaturalist sightings, claims that the cross-examination was "unfair and oppressive," and complaints about the prosecutor's closing address, which the defence said was "problematic."
Crown Seeks Life Without Parole
Crown prosecutors are appealing against Patterson's sentence, which includes a 33-year non-parole period, arguing it is "manifestly inadequate" because it allows for the possibility of parole. They described Patterson's crimes as "truly dreadful," detailing the "betrayal of trust" of family members invited to lunch, the months of planning involved in "orchestrating" the poisonings, and the "fantastic lie" she concocted about a cancer diagnosis. Prosecutors noted that Patterson sat by and watched her victims consume the deadly meal over "chit-chat and banter," and that the meal ended with a prayer for her following her lie. They also highlighted that as the guests lay critically ill, Patterson lied to police and health workers about using foraged mushrooms.
Victims Remembered
The victims were Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, who died after the lunch. Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, the only surviving guest, was in court for the hearing and has never fully recovered from his ordeal. Patterson's estranged husband Simon Patterson, who cancelled his attendance at the lunch at the last minute in part due to his belief that his wife had been trying to poison him for years, did not attend the hearing.
The three judges—Peter Kidd, Stephen McLeish, and Lesley Taylor—reserved their decisions, meaning the outcome of both appeals will likely not be known for weeks or months.