In a significant development in the Erin Patterson mushroom murder case, two appeals have been initiated, marking a crucial phase in this high-profile legal battle. The Victorian Director of Public Prosecutions has launched an appeal against what is perceived as an overly lenient sentence given to Patterson, while she has also instructed her legal team to challenge her conviction.
Patterson’s Conviction and Sentencing
In September 2023, Erin Patterson received a life sentence following her conviction on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. The conviction stemmed from a tragic incident in July 2023, when she served a beef Wellington containing poisonous mushrooms to guests at her home in regional Victoria. The case, which attracted widespread media attention, culminated in a lengthy trial overseen by Victorian Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale.
Justice Beale imposed a life sentence with a non-parole period of 33 years. Given Patterson’s age of 50 and the time she has already spent in detention, she will not be eligible to apply for parole until 2056, when she will be in her 80s.
The law allows both the prosecution and the defence a period of 28 days after sentencing to lodge an appeal. However, both legal teams sought an extension of an additional 28 days, which has been granted under a new trial process initiated at the end of September 2023. This extension allows for a total of 56 days for the appeal to be filed.
Grounds for Appeal
Patterson is now working with a new legal team that includes high-profile lawyer Julian McMahon and well-known criminal law academic Richard Edney. Under the Victorian Criminal Procedure Act, any individual seeking to appeal a conviction or sentence must first obtain leave to appeal from a judge. This process will determine whether there are sufficient grounds to warrant a full hearing in the Court of Appeal.
Patterson’s defence may argue on several grounds. The first is that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, a claim that was successfully made in the George Pell appeal. This ground asserts that the jury could not have found Patterson guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. A second ground could involve claims that the trial judge inadequately directed the jury regarding the defence case, although this is considered unlikely. A more probable avenue for appeal might involve arguing a substantial miscarriage of justice, potentially based on the admissibility of certain evidence.
On the other side, the prosecution also has the right to appeal the sentence. They must similarly seek leave from a judge to proceed with their case. In this instance, the prosecution is arguing that the sentence is significantly lenient. Given that Patterson received three life sentences to run concurrently, the prosecution contends that a 33-year non-parole period is inadequate for someone convicted of multiple murders.
Should the defence appeal be successful, the court could either acquit Patterson or mandate a retrial. Conversely, if the prosecution’s appeal against the sentence is successful, the court may impose a longer non-parole period or return the case to the trial judge for re-sentencing.
As both appeals progress, the next steps in this complex case will be closely monitored. The initial hearing for Patterson’s leave to appeal will offer insight into the direction of her legal arguments and the potential implications for the overall case. The legal community and the public alike will be keenly aware of the developments as this case unfolds further.
