It was a Sunday lunch in a sleepy Australian town that was at the heart of one of the country\u2019s most high-profile murder trials.<\/p>\n
A central question fascinated people around the world: did Erin Patterson deliberately serve her in-laws poisoned beef wellingtons on 29 July 2023?<\/p>\n
More than a year after a jury found Patterson had murdered her in-laws<\/a>, an Australian court will consider whether her convictions should be quashed and if she should remain in prison for life without the possibility of parole.<\/p>\n On Wednesday, three judges of Victoria\u2019s highest court will begin hearing two appeals \u2013 by Patterson herself and the state\u2019s director of public prosecutions (DPP) \u2013 in the triple-murder case that attracted worldwide intrigue and intense media attention for months.<\/p>\n Patterson will appeal against her convictions, while the DPP will appeal against the sentence handed down to Patterson, arguing it is \u201cmanifestly inadequate<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n In September, Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment<\/a>, with a non-parole period of 33 years, for the murders of her estranged husband\u2019s parents \u2013 Don and Gail Patterson and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson. She was also convicted of the attempted murder of Heather\u2019s husband, Ian Wilkinson<\/a>, who survived the lunch after spending weeks in hospital.<\/p>\n Patterson, who maintained her innocence throughout the 11-week trial last year, is not expected to attend court in person. The three court of appeal judges, who will consider the arguments, are expected to reserve their decision in both appeals. They will hand down their judgments at a later date.<\/p>\n Patterson family tree<\/a>Patterson to appeal on seven grounds<\/p>\n In November, Patterson, 51, filed an appeal against her convictions<\/a> but did not appeal against her sentence.<\/p>\n The appeal is on seven grounds including the \u201cfundamental irregularity\u201d around sequestering the jury in the same hotel as police and media representatives, and that her cross-examination during the trial was \u201cunfair and oppressive\u201d.<\/p>\n While considering the verdict, the jury was sequestered in a hotel in a regional town where police and members of the media also stayed. According to media reports, the matter was raised with authorities by her lawyers at the time, but no concerns about the process were raised during the trial.<\/p>\n The appeal documents allege the sequestering issue \u201cfatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts\u201d and argue for the quashing of the convictions and the ordering of a re-trial.<\/p>\n If Erin Patterson is successful in her appeal, the court could order a retrial or acquit her. Pictured: Patterson is escorted out of the supreme court of Victoria following a hearing in August 2025. Photograph: Martin Keep\/AFP\/Getty Images<\/p>\n Patterson is also appealing on the grounds that cell tower evidence \u2013 along with evidence of death cap mushroom sightings near her home \u2013 should not have been heard in the trial. The court last year heard that analysis of Patterson\u2019s mobile phone records<\/a> revealed she may have visited two locations soon after death cap mushroom sightings were reported.<\/p>\n She is also arguing evidence from her Facebook \u201cfriends\u201d, who met Patterson through a true-crime group, should not have been allowed as it was not \u201crelevant\u201d. Patterson told a Facebook group chat that she wanted \u201cnothing to do\u201d with her parents-in-law, according to messages shown in court<\/a>.<\/p>\n The other four grounds of appeal relate to Patterson\u2019s cross-examination by prosecutors over five days, along with issues over other evidence, and the opening and closing addresses of the prosecution.<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s legal team is arguing the prosecution\u2019s closing address caused a \u201csubstantial miscarriage of justice\u201d. While the prosecution maintained there was no evidence of motive, Patterson\u2019s legal team claims, this changed in the closing address to imply a motive for murder.<\/p>\n If Patterson is successful in her appeal, the court will quash her convictions and could order a retrial or acquit her.<\/p>\n Prosecution: sentence \u2018manifestly inadequate\u2019<\/p>\n