Gavin Blackburn/Euronews
Erin Patterson was found guilty last year of murdering her husband’s parents and an elderly aunt in 2023 by serving them a beef Wellington lunch laced with lethal death cap mushrooms.
Australian mushroom killer Erin Patterson’s lawyers said on Wednesday the jury was not properly sequestered in her trial as they sought to overturn her conviction in a triple-murder case that sparked a worldwide media frenzy.
The 51-year-old was found guilty last year of murdering her husband’s parents and an elderly aunt in 2023 by serving them a beef Wellington lunch laced with lethal death cap mushrooms.
Read More: Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson is back – cvnznews.com
Patterson was also convicted of the attempted murder of her husband’s uncle, a small-town local pastor who survived the beef-and-pastry dish after weeks in hospital.
A judge sentenced her to life imprisonment, eligible for parole after 33 years.
Three judges are hearing two appeals on Wednesday and Thursday: Patterson’s attempt to overturn her conviction and the prosecution’s demand for a stiffer sentence.
Patterson watched the proceedings at Melbourne’s Supreme Court via a live video link from her maximum-security prison, the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, in Melbourne’s western suburbs.
‘Fundamental failure’
Her lawyer, Richard Edney, argued that the fact that members of the jury had stayed in the same hotel as a witness for the police, as well as members of the prosecution, undermined the fairness of the trial.
He said it represented a “fundamental failure” of the legal process “in perhaps one of the most high-profile criminal trials this state has ever had.”
But he conceded there was no evidence to suggest the jury had communicated with others.
Patterson’s other lawyer, Veronika Drago, argued that some evidence allowed by the judge, relating to cell towers and posts of death cap mushroom sightings, had been “innocuous” and unreliable.
That she was forced to answer questions based on this evidence “arises to the level of a substantial miscarriage of justice,” Drago said.
‘Manifestly inadequate’
Other evidence about mushroom images on a memory card in Patterson’s home was wrongly excluded, the lawyer said in an appeal submission in November last year.
Patterson’s solicitor additionally accused the prosecution of an “unfair and oppressive” cross-examination during the trial.
Before listening to the arguments in detail, the Court of Appeal judges must decide whether the grounds justify granting Patterson leave to challenge her conviction at all.
On the other side, the prosecution has appealed against Patterson’s sentence, saying the non-parole period of 33 years imposed by the judge was “manifestly inadequate.”
The judge erred in finding there was a substantial chance Patterson would be held in solitary confinement for years to come and this “infected” his decision, the prosecution argued.
A 12-person jury found Patterson guilty in July last year of murdering her husband Simon’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, as well as his aunt, Heather Wilkinson, at her home in the Victorian farming village of Leongatha.
She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Heather’s husband Ian, a pastor who fell gravely ill but eventually recovered.
