Erin Patterson’s final bid to avoid spending the rest of her life in prison will be resolved before the week is over.
Judges Stephen McLeish, Lesley Taylor and Peter Kidd of the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal are due to deliver their decision on Friday.
The ruling could result in a retrial for the 51-year-old, confirm the dismissal of her appeal, or increase her punishment if prosecutors succeed with their own appeal.
Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Patterson to life imprisonment on September 8, 2025, with a minimum non-parole period of 33 years.
Patterson has argued that she was treated unfairly, challenging both her convictions and the sentence imposed on her.
The central argument in her appeal is that placing the jury in the same hotel as police officers and prosecutors amounted to a “catastrophic failure” by the court.
During an August hearing, Patterson’s barrister Richard Edney argued that the arrangement was improper because journalists, police and prosecutors were also staying at the hotel.
“We would describe the sequestration and what occurred during it as catastrophic, and in our submission, what has occurred here is that there has been a fundamental failure to comply with the dictum already referred to,” he said.
Erin Patterson’s final attempt to walk free from prison will be decided by the end of the week
Justice Peter Kidd responded with a brief question: “So what?”
Daily Mail journalists from around the world were among those staying at the same hotel.
The Age journalist Chris Vedelago later reported that Patterson’s lawyer Bill Doogue had told the court the Daily Mail may have compromised the jury.
“There was also an article published by the Daily Mail that can only be based on discussions with the jurors, either directly or indirectly, including mention of one of the jurors being allowed to watch an AFL game separately with a jury keeper,” Doogue claimed.
The allegation concerned a Daily Mail report that jurors had watched the Carlton and Collingwood match while sequestered. The story was based on information from a source with no connection to the jury.
Jurors in the closely watched death cap mushroom trial were sequestered at a hotel in the Morwell area while considering their verdict.
For part of that time, members of the prosecution team, journalists and an important police witness were staying at the same location.
Ian Wilkinson, left, the only guest to survive Patterson’s mushroom lunch, with Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall, who helped bring her to justice
Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC rejected the argument during the appeal hearing.
“Far from being some sort of catastrophic failure, to use the words that Mr Edney used, there’s no evidence in our submission to support this ground,” he told the court in August.
Mr Kissane maintained that the evidence showed the sequestration arrangements had operated as intended.
Jury keepers had been sworn in open court and reported to the trial judge that there had been ‘no interaction’ between the jurors and any other person.
‘The issue is whether there was communication between this jury and any other person,’ Mr Kissane told the court.
‘The evidence as it stands points towards there being no communication, and once the court accepts that, then there’s no irregularity in this situation, let alone a fundamental irregularity that goes to the root of the trial.’
He rejected any suggestion that simply sharing a hotel entrance or the possibility of jurors glancing out a window amounted to improper contact.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Former New Jersey Officer’s Son May Use Insanity Defense in Murders of Two Girls in Affluent Town
‘The idea that contact includes looking out a window and seeing somebody passing by, in our submission, just doesn’t work,’ Mr Kissane said.
Erin Patterson’s barristers Veronika Drago (left) and Richard Edney (centre) enter the court in August
Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC (right) leads his team out of court on Thursday
‘It’s directed at communication… not simply eyeballing somebody.’
The jurors had their own floor and ate meals in a separate conference room, with keepers remaining on duty throughout.
Mr Kissane accepted the arrangement was ‘obviously undesirable’ and that trial Justice Beale would almost certainly have blocked it if asked in advance.
‘I’ve got no doubt that if it was said to the judge, “Look, we want to stay in the same hotel as the jury,” the judge would have said “no”,’ he conceded.
But Mr Kissane stressed it happened ‘accidentally’ due to limited local accommodation and that no actual irregularity occurred.
‘There’s no evidence whatsoever that any member of the jury spoke or had the opportunity to speak to any other person apart from the jury… and the jury keeper, let alone anyone from the prosecution team,’ he said.
Mr Edney had raised 35 complaints about the prosecution’s closing address at Patterson’s trial.
Don and Gail Patterson were killed by Erin Patterson
Heather Wilkinson was also murdered in the deadly lunch
At trial, she had been represented by Colin Mandy SC who tried every avenue to exonerate Patterson.
‘The defence counsel was very alive to the complaints that you’re now making under ground six. So alive was he to them that he raised most of them in his final address,’ Justice Lesley Taylor told Mr Edney.
‘When one looks at the final address delivered by a very experienced trial counsel, the complaints that you are now raising, they were on the table at the time.
‘Nothing was being overlooked here.’
Mr Kissane argued Justice Beale should not have set a non‑parole period at all and Patterson should have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
He said that if a non-parole period was to be fixed, 33 years was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of her offending.
As it stands Patterson will be aged 81 when she becomes eligible for parole.
Mr Kissane said Justice Beale’s reliance on prison conditions to justify a 33‑year non‑parole period was legally and factually flawed.
Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Patterson to life in prison on September 8, 2025, but set a non-parole period of 33 years
‘If somebody’s in their 80s and commits an offence that requires a significant non-parole period, then the court is sentencing somebody in effect, albeit that they may well impose… a non-parole period by the statute, the court is still in effect sentencing somebody beyond what one would normally expect to be the term of their natural life,’ Mr Kissane said.
‘It has its harsh aspect about it, of course, but we accept that. But in our submission, that is not a matter that’s outweighed by the seriousness of the offending… that’s a harsh, harsh submission to make. But we submit that it’s demanded by the nature of the offending in this case.’