Erin Patterson appeal live: mushroom murderer challenges convictions over fatal beef wellington lunch
Key events
Sequestering argument continues
Edney says the jury should have been sequestered entirely separately from all parties in the trial.
Justice Peter Kidd asks if there is evidence that a breach of the communication embargo, which jurors must adhere to, has occurred. He says jurors are supervised to “protect the integrity of their deliberations and communications.”
He says:
If there has been no breach, then where’s the fundamental irregularity?
Edney says there was a “reasonable possibility” that jurors saw the presence of police and prosecutors at the hotel where they were sequestered. He also says “this was a hotel with windows”.
Kidd says even if non-verbal communication occurred, it would need to be something beyond just seeing members of police and the prosuection at the hotel, for a breach to have occurred. He says:
There’s no evidence that that’s occurred here.
Justice Peter Kidd asks Edney about what “contact” the jury had with the parties.
Edney says “contact” should have a broad meaning in this case as the jurors could still see the lead investigator in the hotel.
Justice Lesley Taylor says the jurors take an oath not to discuss the trial with outside parties.
But Edney says the sequestering issue allowed the “potential for communication or even subconscious influence” on the jury.
He acknowledges there is no evidence of any “direct communication” between the jurors and parties.
‘Fundamental irregularity’ over sequestering of jury raised
Patterson’s barrister Richard Edney has begun talking about the “fundamental irregularity” that occured around sequestering the jury in the same hotel as police and media representatives.
He says justice must not just be done but be “seen to be done”.
Edney says the sequestering issue was an “inexplicable” and “still unexplained” failure that occurred in one of Victoria’s most high-profile criminal trials.
Edney says sequestering didn’t work because parties with a vested interest in the case were staying at the same accommodation as the jury. He acknowledged an email from a court-appointed jury keeper stating there was no interaction between the jury and the parties.
But he says the jury still had an opportunity to see “participants from one side of the case”.
Edney describes the incident as “catastrophic”.
Patterson appears via video link
Patterson is being beamed into the court via video link from Melbourne’s Dame Phyllis Frost Centre – the state’s maximum security women’s prison.
She is wearing a blue jumper and reading glasses and appears to be typing on a laptop.
The three judges that will hear the appeal arguments are Justices Stephen McLeish, Lesley Taylor and Peter Kidd.
The prosecutors for the appeals hearing are the director of public prosecutions for Victoria, Brendan Kissane KC, and crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams.
Patterson’s legal team now includes barristers Richard Edney and Veronika Drago.
The sole surviving lunch guest, Ian Wilkinson, is in the courtroom this morning.
Wilkinson is joined by his daughter, Ruth Dubois.
He is seated next to Det Leading Sen Const Stephen Eppingstall, the detective who was in charge of the murder investigation.
At a pre-sentencing hearing last year, Wilkinson said he had forgiven Erin Patterson for trying to murder him but could not offer her forgiveness for killing three other people with poisoned beef wellingtons.
He told the court:
I make an offer of forgiveness to Erin.
In regards to the murders of Heather and Gail and Don, I am compelled to seek justice.
Now I am no longer Erin Patterson’s victim, and she has become the victim of my kindness.
Director of public prosecutions appealing against Patterson’s sentence
The DPP is appealing against the sentence handed down to Patterson, arguing it is “manifestly inadequate”.
The DPP argues the trial judge erred in finding she was likely to spend “years to come” in solitary confinement when allowing for the possibility of parole.
Patterson’s sentence means after 33 years behind bars she’ll be eligible to apply for parole. During a pre-sentence hearing, the prosecution had submitted that, because of the horrendous nature of her crimes, Patterson should never be released.
While handing down Patterson’s sentence last September, Justice Christopher Beale found the triple murdered had effectively been held in solitary confinement for the past 15 months for her own protection due to the notoriety of her crimes. He said there was a substantial chance she would continue to be held in those condition for years to come for her own protection.
Beale said because of Patterson’s “harsh prison conditions” she was likely to continue facing for the “foreseeable future”, he had to consider these in sentencing and fix a non-parole period.
Patterson appealing on seven grounds
Erin Patterson, 51, is appealing against her convictions but not her sentence.
If successful, the court of appeal will quash her convictions and could order a retrial or acquit her.
The grounds include what her lawyers argue is a “fundamental irregularity” around sequestering the jury in the same hotel as police and media representatives, and that her cross-examination during the trial was “unfair and oppressive”.
While considering the verdict, the jury was sequestered in a hotel in a regional town where police and members of the media also stayed. According to media reports, the matter was raised with authorities by Patterson’s lawyers at the time, but no concerns about the process were raised during the trial.
Patterson is also appealing on the grounds that mobile tower evidence – along with evidence of death cap mushroom sightings near her home – should not have been heard in the trial. The court last year heard that analysis of Patterson’s mobile phone records revealed she may have visited two locations soon after death cap mushroom sightings were reported.
She is also arguing evidence from her Facebook “friends”, who met Patterson through a true-crime group, should not have been allowed as it was not “relevant”. Patterson told a Facebook group chat that she wanted “nothing to do” with her parents-in-law, according to messages shown in court.
Good morning
Welcome to our live coverage of Erin Patterson’s appeals.
It’s been more than a year since a Victorian jury found Patterson guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband’s elderly relatives and attempting to murder a fourth.
Today, three judges of Victoria’s highest court will begin hearing two appeals, one brought by Patterson and another by the state’s director of public prosecutions (DPP).
They will be considering whether her convictions should be quashed, and if she should remain in prison for life without the possibility of parole.
Patterson is appealing against her convictions while the DPP is appealing against her sentence, arguing it is “manifestly inadequate”.
Last September, Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 33 years, for the murders of her estranged husband’s parents – Don and Gail Patterson and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson. She was also convicted of the attempted murder of Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending weeks in hospital.
It’s expected to be a two-day appeals hearing. We are expecting today’s hearing to begin at 10.15am.
