Erin Patterson appeals mushroom murder convictions as prosecutors seek tougher sentence

The Big Picture

Erin Patterson’s convictions over the fatal mushroom poisoning of three relatives are under appeal, while Victorian prosecutors are separately seeking a tougher sentence for the 51-year-old.

Three judges of Victoria’s Court of Appeal heard arguments over two days on Patterson’s challenge to her convictions for the murders of Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, as well as the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. The court also considered an appeal by the state’s director of public prosecutions against the 33-year non-parole period set when Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment in September 2025.

The judges reserved their decisions, meaning no immediate ruling was issued. A decision may take months.

What Happened

The convictions arose from a July 2023 lunch at Patterson’s home in Leongatha, Victoria, where guests were served individual portions of beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms. Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Heather Wilkinson, 66, died. Ian Wilkinson survived after spending weeks in hospital and continues to have health effects from the poisoning.

Patterson has consistently maintained that the poisoning was accidental and that she did not intend to kill her relatives. She followed the appeal proceedings by video link from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre prison.

A central issue in her appeal concerned arrangements for the jury during deliberations. Patterson’s lawyers said the jury was housed in the same hotel as prosecution personnel, police and a key police witness, describing the situation as a “catastrophic” failure and a fundamental irregularity that denied her a fair trial.

The defence argued that the arrangement undermined the appearance of justice, particularly in a case that attracted intense public attention. It said there was an evidentiary gap because no hotel CCTV was available and jurors could not be questioned about any interactions.

What Each Side Is Saying

Prosecutors said there was no evidence that jurors had any contact or communication with outside parties while at the hotel. They argued that the jurors remained under the supervision of the jury-keeper and that the sequestration system operated as intended, even if the hotel arrangement increased the opportunity for an irregularity.

Patterson advanced seven grounds in her conviction appeal. Her lawyers challenged the admission of mobile-phone tower evidence and reports of death cap mushroom sightings on the iNaturalist website, saying the material was unfairly prejudicial. Prosecutors responded that the evidence formed part of a broader collection of material which showed she had an opportunity to obtain death cap mushrooms before the lunch.

Her appeal also argued that photos and videos concerning mushrooms, found on an SD card at her home, should have been admitted because they supported her claim that she had previously foraged for mushrooms. The prosecution said there was no evidence of an innocent interest in mushroom foraging from other witnesses.

Other grounds challenged Facebook messages about Patterson’s in-laws and estranged husband, the conduct of prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC during cross-examination, and the prosecution’s closing address. Patterson’s lawyers said the Facebook material lacked context and that the cross-examination was unfair and oppressive. Prosecutors described the questioning as fair and thorough, and said the closing-address complaints lacked substance.

The appeal also raised an alleged inconsistency over motive: the defence argued that prosecutors said they would not advance a particular motive, but later implied one in their closing address. The prosecution said Rogers had expressly told jurors that the Crown was not asserting a motive.

Why It Matters

The case tests both the handling of a high-profile criminal trial and the limits of appellate review of jury verdicts. Patterson’s hotel-sequestration argument does not allege proven contact between jurors and prosecution-linked figures; rather, it contends that the circumstances themselves damaged the integrity of the process. Prosecutors say the absence of evidence of contact is decisive.

If the convictions were overturned, the potential outcomes could include a retrial or an acquittal. Those outcomes would depend on the court’s reasons and findings.

What Happens Next

The DPP’s sentencing appeal focuses on whether Patterson should have been given any possibility of parole. Prosecutors argued that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to an expectation that Patterson would spend years in solitary confinement, and sought either a life sentence without a non-parole period or a longer minimum term.

Patterson’s defence argued that her current conditions amount to solitary confinement under international standards, saying she spends 22 to 23 hours a day in her cell. Prosecutors said her circumstances are restrictive but do not support the conclusion that she will remain in solitary confinement for years.

Justices Lesley Taylor, Stephen McLeish and Peter Kidd reserved judgment on both the conviction and sentencing appeals.