Updated at\u00a022.52 EDT<\/p>\n
Key events<\/p>\n
Edney: Patterson’s cross-examination neither fair nor proper<\/p>\n
Patterson\u2019s barrister, Richard Edney, has skipped ahead to ground five of her appeal and is now arguing that Patterson\u2019s cross-examination was neither fair nor proper.<\/p>\n
He says under cross-examination, the prosecution asked Patterson whether a witness\u2019s evidence was truthful or wrong.<\/p>\n
Edney says it is for the jury to make findings about the reliability and credibility of a witness\u2019s evidence.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a022.54 EDT<\/p>\n Inadmissibility of mushroom photos and videos compromised Patterson’s right to silence, court hears<\/p>\n Drago is now turning to ground three of her client\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s lawyers argued that the trial judge, Justice Christopher Beale, erred in ruling that photos and videos of mushrooms found on an SD card at her home were inadmissible.<\/p>\n Drago says the SD card was found in Patterson\u2019s study and contained photos of mushrooms taken in 2020. Some photos were posted on Facebook.<\/p>\n Drago says some of the mushrooms appear to be foraged mushrooms.<\/p>\n She says the prosecution wanted to use the photos in their case to show Patterson had an \u201cenduring interest\u201d in wild-growing mushrooms. But Beale ruled that the photos were inadmissible because they were too temporally remote from the circumstances of the case. <\/p>\n As a reminder, the beef wellington lunch occurred in July 2023.<\/p>\n Drago says Beale\u2019s ruling that the photos of mushrooms were inadmissible meant Patterson was compelled to give evidence, compromising her right to silence as a defendant.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a022.52 EDT<\/p>\n Phone tower evidence was so \u2018technical\u2019 it could be used to mislead jury, Patterson\u2019s lawyers say<\/p>\n Kidd says the limitations of the cell tower evidence provided by Sorell were laid out.<\/p>\n Drago says the evidence was \u201cso complicated and technical\u201d and had so many limitations that attempts to simplify it were prone to being misleading.<\/p>\n She adds that the \u201cartificialness of the process that needed to be undertaken\u201d for Sorell\u2019s evidence to be admissible should not have occurred in the trial.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a022.04 EDT<\/p>\n \u2018Dangerous\u2019 and \u2018unfair\u2019 phone tower evidence should not have been permitted, court hears<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s barrister, Veronika Drago, says the mobile phone tower evidence and the death cap mushroom sightings posted to the citizen science website iNaturalist should not have been permitted in the trial.<\/p>\n She says \u201cobjective evidence\u201d about cell towers was turned into \u201csubjective evidence\u201d by expert witness Dr Matthew Sorell.<\/p>\n Sorrell, a digital forensics science expert, analysed Patterson\u2019s mobile phone records for police and testified at the trial.<\/p>\n Drago says the judge, Justice Christopher Beale, ruled that the cell tower evidence did not prove that Patterson visited Outtrim and Loch \u2013 where sightings of the lethal death cap mushrooms were posted online to the platform iNaturalist. Drago says Beale said it only showed the possibility she visited the locations on the dates raised in the trial.<\/p>\n She says the cell tower evidence was \u201cdangerous\u201d and \u201cunfair\u201d. <\/p>\n During the trial, fungi expert Dr Thomas May told the court that he uploaded a post on iNaturalist on 21 May 2023 identifying death cap mushrooms in Outtrim. Christine McKenzie, a retired pharmacist and former poisons information specialist at the Victorian Poisons Information Centre, told the court she discovered death cap mushrooms in Loch, and posted them on iNaturalist on 18 April 2023.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a022.02 EDT<\/p>\n Court about to hear second of Patterson\u2019s seven grounds of appeal<\/p>\n Just a reminder that Patterson is appealing against her conviction on seven grounds.<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s legal team is now moving to the second ground for appeal. This argues that the evidence about cell towers and death cap mushroom sightings should not have been heard in the trial.<\/p>\n Last year, the court 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 online.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.40 EDT<\/p>\n DPP\u2019s response to sequestering issue<\/p>\n Richard Edney, Patterson\u2019s barrister, says the DPP has argued it is not reasonable to expect that in a trial held in a regional area the jury can be kept away from the \u201cworld at large\u201d, including those with a connection to the case.<\/p>\n But Edney says it is reasonable to expect that jurors are removed from anyone who has an interest in the trial while they deliberate. He says the DPP\u2019s argument places costs and convenience over ensuring \u201cjustice is done and seen to be done\u201d.<\/p>\n Edney says there was other accommodation available in the broader region.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.28 EDT<\/p>\n How two days of hearings are expected to unfold Just to go back a step to a timetabling matter which may help you understand how the next two days could play out: Justice McLeish said that Erin Patterson\u2019s appeal against her conviction will be heard first, with an expectation that her legal team will make their arguments until Wednesday afternoon.<\/p>\n The prosecution will then respond to those submissions.<\/p>\n After submissions are heard regarding the conviction appeal, the court will turn to the DPP\u2019s appeal against Patterson\u2019s sentence. This argument relating to sentence is not expected to be heard until Thursday afternoon.<\/p>\n Photograph: Martin Keep\/AFP\/Getty ImagesShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.23 EDT<\/p>\n Limited accomodation during sequestering \u2018issues of convenience\u2019, Patterson\u2019s barrister says<\/p>\n Kidd says Patterson\u2019s case must be considered in the context of other cases where jurors had unsupervised access to \u201coutsiders\u201d. He says in this case the jurors were under the supervision of the jury-keeper at all times.<\/p>\n Edney says it\u2019s not the same as other cases where the jury had contact with outsiders but says it should not have occurred.<\/p>\n Edney says if the defence\u2019s legal team had been staying at the same hotel as the jurors it would raise integrity questions about the deliberations.<\/p>\n He argues that the police informant, Det Leading Sen Const Stephen Eppingstall, and two prosecutors remained at the hotel days after they realised they were sharing accommodation with the jury. He acknowledges the limited accommodation availability but says these are \u201cissues of convenience\u201d. He says:<\/p>\n double quotation markThey are not, in our submission, a principled response.<\/p>\n Edney says the police informant, who was in charge of the investigation, was staying at the same hotel as jurors for the duration of deliberations. He says the prosecution never raised this at the time.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Sequestering argument continues<\/p>\n Edney says the jury should have been sequestered entirely separately from all parties in the trial.<\/p>\n Justice Peter Kidd asks if there is evidence that a breach of the communication embargo, which jurors must adhere to, has occurred. He says jurors are supervised to \u201cprotect the integrity of their deliberations and communications.\u201d<\/p>\n He says:<\/p>\n double quotation markIf there has been no breach, then where\u2019s the fundamental irregularity?<\/p>\n Edney says there was a \u201creasonable possibility\u201d that jurors saw the presence of police and prosecutors at the hotel where they were sequestered. He also says \u201cthis was a hotel with windows\u201d.<\/p>\n Kidd says even if non-verbal communication occurred, it would need to be something beyond just seeing members of police and the prosecution at the hotel for a breach to have occurred. He says:<\/p>\n double quotation markThere\u2019s no evidence that that\u2019s occurred here.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.00 EDT<\/p>\n Sequestering issue enabled possible \u2018subconscious\u2019 influence, court hears<\/p>\n Justice Peter Kidd asks Edney about what \u201ccontact\u201d the jury had with the parties.<\/p>\n Edney says \u201ccontact\u201d should have a broad meaning in this case as the jurors could still see the lead investigator in the hotel.<\/p>\n Justice Lesley Taylor says the jurors take an oath not to discuss the trial with outside parties.<\/p>\n But Edney says the sequestering issue allowed the \u201cpotential for communication or even subconscious influence\u201d on the jury.<\/p>\n He acknowledges there is no evidence of any \u201cdirect communication\u201d between the jurors and parties.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.01 EDT<\/p>\n \u2018Fundamental irregularity\u2019 over sequestering of jury raised<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s barrister Richard Edney has begun talking about the \u201cfundamental irregularity\u201d that occured around sequestering the jury in the same hotel as police and media representatives.<\/p>\n He says justice must not just be done but be \u201cseen to be done\u201d.<\/p>\n Edney says the sequestering issue was an \u201cinexplicable\u201d and \u201cstill unexplained\u201d failure that occurred in one of Victoria\u2019s most high-profile criminal trials.<\/p>\n Edney says sequestering didn\u2019t work because parties with a vested interest in the case were staying at the same accommodation as the jury. He acknowledged an email from a court-appointed jury keeper stating there was no interaction between the jury and the parties.<\/p>\n But he says the jury still had an opportunity to see \u201cparticipants from one side of the case\u201d.<\/p>\n Edney describes the incident as \u201ccatastrophic\u201d.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Patterson appears via video link<\/p>\n Patterson is being beamed into the court via video link from Melbourne\u2019s Dame Phyllis Frost Centre \u2013 the state\u2019s maximum security women\u2019s prison.<\/p>\n She is wearing a blue jumper, blue jeans and reading glasses and appears to be typing on a laptop.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a021.20 EDT<\/p>\n The three judges that will hear the appeal arguments are Justices Stephen McLeish, Lesley Taylor and Peter Kidd.<\/p>\n The prosecutors for the appeals hearing are the director of public prosecutions for Victoria<\/a>, Brendan Kissane KC, and crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams.<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s legal team now includes barristers Richard Edney and Veronika Drago.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a020.22 EDT<\/p>\n The sole surviving lunch guest, Ian Wilkinson, is in the courtroom this morning.<\/p>\n Wilkinson is joined by his daughter, Ruth Dubois.<\/p>\n He is seated next to Det Leading Sen Const Stephen Eppingstall, the detective who was in charge of the murder investigation.<\/p>\n At a pre-sentencing hearing last year, Wilkinson said he had forgiven Erin Patterson for trying to murder him but could not offer her forgiveness for killing three other people with poisoned beef wellingtons.<\/p>\n He told the court:<\/p>\n double quotation markI make an offer of forgiveness to Erin.<\/p>\n In regards to the murders of Heather and Gail and Don, I am compelled to seek justice.<\/p>\n Now I am no longer Erin Patterson\u2019s victim, and she has become the victim of my kindness.<\/p>\n Ian Wilkinson speaks to media outside the supreme court in September last year. Photograph: Joel Carrett\/AAPShare<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a020.31 EDT<\/p>\n Director of public prosecutions appealing against Patterson’s sentence<\/p>\n The DPP is appealing against the sentence handed down to Patterson, arguing it is \u201cmanifestly inadequate<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n The DPP argues the trial judge erred in finding she was likely to spend \u201cyears to come\u201d in solitary confinement when allowing for the possibility of parole.<\/p>\n Patterson\u2019s sentence means after 33 years behind bars she\u2019ll be eligible to apply for parole. During a pre-sentence hearing, the prosecution had submitted that, because of the horrendous nature of her crimes, Patterson should never be released.<\/p>\n While handing down Patterson\u2019s sentence last September, Justice Christopher Beale found the triple murdered had effectively been held in solitary confinement for the past 15 months for her own protection due to the notoriety of her crimes. He said there was a substantial chance she would continue to be held in those condition for years to come for her own protection.<\/p>\n Beale said because of Patterson\u2019s \u201charsh prison conditions\u201d she was likely to continue facing for the \u201cforeseeable future\u201d, he had to consider these in sentencing and fix a non-parole period.<\/p>\n Updated at\u00a020.37 EDT<\/p>\n Patterson appealing on seven grounds<\/p>\n Erin Patterson, 51, is appealing against her convictions but not her sentence.<\/p>\n If successful, the court of appeal will quash her convictions and could order a retrial or acquit her.<\/p>\n The grounds include what her lawyers argue is a \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 Patterson\u2019s lawyers at the time, but no concerns about the process were raised during the trial.<\/p>\n Patterson is also appealing on the grounds that mobile 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 Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a020.08 EDT<\/p>\n Good morning<\/p>\n Welcome to our live coverage of Erin Patterson\u2019s appeals.<\/p>\n It\u2019s been more than a year since a Victorian jury found Patterson guilty<\/a> of murdering three of her estranged husband\u2019s elderly relatives and attempting to murder a fourth.<\/p>\n Today, three judges of Victoria\u2019s highest court will begin hearing two appeals, one brought by Patterson and another by the state\u2019s director of public prosecutions (DPP).<\/p>\n They will be considering whether her convictions should be quashed, and if she should remain in prison for life without the possibility of parole.<\/p>\n Patterson is appealing against her convictions while the DPP is appealing against her sentence, arguing it is \u201cmanifestly inadequate<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Last 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 It\u2019s expected to be a two-day appeals hearing. We are expecting today\u2019s hearing to begin at 10.15am.<\/p>\n![\"Nino](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/1787109130_303_Nino_Bucci.png\")
Nino Bucci<\/p>\n![\"Erin](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/3675.jpg\")
Erin Patterson: Australia’s mushroom murderer sentenced to life in prison \u2013 videoShare<\/a><\/p>\n