In brief
The Court of Appeal in Melbourne has heard arguments that a catastrophic hotel error—where jury members shared accommodation with prosecutors and key witnesses—undermined the integrity of Erin Patterson’s conviction for murdering three relatives with death‑cap mushrooms. Patterson’s lawyers also contend that speculative evidence about the mushrooms and unfair prejudicial Facebook messages should have been excluded. Meanwhile, Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions seeks to appeal the parole terms set for Patterson, labeling a 33‑year period as "manifestly inadequate". The case remains pending, with the appeal judges expected to issue a decision in weeks.
Erin Patterson, 51, has been convicted of murdering three relatives and attempting a fourth by serving a beef Wellington laced with death‑cap mushrooms. She now appeals to the Victorian Court of Appeal, arguing that a hotel accommodation error during the original trial compromised the jury’s impartiality.
Patterson’s lawyers claimed the jury was housed in the same hotel as prosecutors, a key police witness and journalists, a situation they describe as "catastrophic" for the integrity of the verdict. They demand a retrial to ensure justice is both done and seen to be done.
The defence also challenges speculative evidence used by the prosecution regarding the sourcing of the mushrooms, including phone‑tower data linked to iNaturalist posts and Facebook messages that they deem irrelevant and prejudicial.
At the hearing, the Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the 33‑year parole period set by the judge was "manifestly inadequate" and that a fixed parole term was inappropriate. The appeal judges will reserve a decision, with a verdict expected in due course.
