Erin Patterson has lost her appeal against convictions for murdering three relatives with a poisonous mushroom meal, with judges also ruling that she must remain in prison for life. Victoria's Court of Appeal on Friday rejected her challenge and upheld the prosecution's argument that a sentence allowing possible release was inadequate.
Patterson, 52, had received a life sentence with a minimum of 33 years before she could be considered for parole. The three appeal judges removed that possibility, describing her crimes as exceptionally calculated and cold. Speaking for the panel, Justice Stephen McLeish said the criminality was so shocking that setting a non-parole period was inappropriate.
A jury convicted Patterson after a high-profile trial last year over a lunch she hosted at her home in rural Victoria in 2023. She served individual beef Wellingtons containing death cap mushrooms to her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson. All three died.
She was also convicted of attempting to murder Heather's husband, local pastor Ian Wilkinson, who ate the same lunch. He survived after weeks in hospital but continues to experience health problems caused by the poisoning. Patterson's estranged husband, Simon, had planned to attend but cancelled shortly beforehand, partly because he believed she had repeatedly tried to poison him over several years.
The original sentencing judge allowed the possibility of parole after 33 years because of the harsh conditions Patterson was likely to experience in prison. She appealed promptly, and her lawyers presented seven grounds for overturning the convictions in August. One concerned a hotel booking error that placed jurors in the same accommodation as prosecutors, a key police witness and members of the media. Her lawyers argued that this compromised the trial's integrity.
The defence also challenged evidence admitted at trial, including cell tower records suggesting Patterson had travelled to locations where death cap mushrooms might grow and Facebook posts complaining about her in-laws. Her lawyers said these materials were irrelevant and prejudicial, while evidence supporting the mother-of-two's longstanding interest in mushroom foraging had wrongly been excluded.
Further arguments concerned the prosecution's five-day cross-examination of Patterson, which her legal team described as unfair and oppressive. They also maintained that the Crown had presented inconsistent arguments about her motive.
The appeal judges dismissed every ground on Friday. Patterson now has 28 days to decide whether to ask the High Court of Australia to hear a further appeal.
