The court’s decision
Victoria’s Court of Appeal dismissed Erin Patterson’s bid to overturn her convictions on Friday, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment with no chance of release. Justice Stephen McLeish, acting for the panel including Justices Lesley Taylor and Peter Kidd, ruled that the original non-parole period of 33 years was manifestly inadequate. The 52-year-old remains in custody at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre following her convictions for the murders of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, as well as the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. The court rejected all seven grounds raised by Patterson’s legal team, which argued the trial process contained fundamental irregularities. The court found the taking of three lives and the attempt on a fourth called for much stronger denunciation. The justices heard arguments from the legal team and prosecutors in August before delivering the decision. Patterson did not attend the 15-minute hearing in person and showed no emotion on the video feed. She is one of the only women in Australian history to receive a life sentence without parole. The court found that while the first ground of the DPP’s appeal failed, the second ground, that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, succeeded. The judges noted the crimes were "heinous" and that a 33-year non-parole period failed to reflect the "calculated criminality" of the case. When the judges left the courtroom, Patterson stood, took a book from beside her, and walked off-screen. In the courtroom, family members hugged and were emotional, while detectives involved in the case looked elated.
| Sentence Aspect | Original Sentence | New Sentence |
|---|---|---|
| Non-parole period | 33 years | No possibility of release |
| Conviction status | Convicted | Conviction upheld |
Calculated deception and poisoning
The court found that Patterson maintained an intent to murder all four people for three weeks, from the time they were invited to the lunch, during the meal, and during the "protracted suffering and ultimate deaths that resulted". Her actions involved an "elaborate series of deceptions" where she claimed to have cancer, denied she had foraged mushrooms, and lied about the source of the mushrooms. The court noted the offending was "extraordinarily cold and calculated, and stands to be denounced in the strongest possible terms". This sentencing follows the 2023 incident where she served individual beef wellingtons containing death cap mushrooms to her estranged husband’s relatives. Ian Wilkinson survived the toxic meal after spending weeks in the hospital. The court stated the offending represented a "cruel breach of trust to members of the applicant’s extended family". During the trial, Patterson maintained the beef wellingtons were accidentally laced with mushrooms and suggested Asian grocers in far-flung suburbs were the source. She also maintained she fell sick after eating the meal. During the lunch, Patterson sat with her victims, watching them eat the meal while her own plate was a different colour to theirs. Simon Patterson, the host’s estranged husband, missed the lunch because he believed his wife had repeatedly tried to poison him over several years.
Dismissed grounds and next steps
Patterson’s lawyers, led by Richard Edney, argued that the jury’s accommodation in the same hotel as the prosecution, the media, and a police informant created a "catastrophic" failure of justice. While the court described the arrangement as "highly undesirable" and "plainly unfortunate," the justices found no evidence that any wrongdoing occurred to prevent a fair verdict. The judges also dismissed claims that the court gave weight to telecommunications evidence suggesting Patterson visited sites where death cap mushrooms were reported. The defense also argued that the prosecution’s five-day cross-examination of Patterson was "unfair and oppressive" and that the Crown was inconsistent in its arguments about a motive. Additionally, the legal team argued the judge wrongly blocked evidence of Patterson’s mushroom foraging hobby and certain Facebook posts where she complained about her in-laws. The court described many of the grounds in the appeal as having no substance, being without merit, or being fanciful. Patterson has 28 days to apply to the High Court for leave to appeal.
