Erin Patterson, 51, the woman known as the 'Mushroom Killer,' is back in court in Australia on Wednesday (August 19) as she attempts to appeal her murder conviction. Her lawyers are appealing on the grounds that the judge allowed evidence he should not have last September, the prosecution behaved improperly, and the jury was tainted by an 'accommodation bungle.'
Guilty verdict and life sentence
Patterson was found guilty last September on three counts of murder and one of attempted murder following a lunch she prepared for guests in her home in country Victoria in 2023. The seemingly ordinary mother from Leongatha, 85 miles from Melbourne, was sentenced to life behind bars after being found guilty of lacing a meal she served to her in-laws with deathcap mushrooms.
Three of her four guests died in hospital after eating the lethal meal: her ex-husband's parents Don Patterson, 70, and Gail Patterson, 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66. Ian Wilkinson, a local church minister, survived after having an emergency liver transplant. The life sentence with a 33-year non-parole period was handed down in September.
Grounds for appeal
Despite the guilty verdict, Patterson maintains that the deaths were accidental and that she did not know the mushrooms were poisonous. Her lawyers claim that the prosecution's five-day cross-examination was "unfair and oppressive" and have questioned several pieces of evidence used in the trial, such as mobile phone tower data and social media posts reporting sightings of death cap mushrooms, which they say should never have been presented to the jury. They argue the evidence was not relevant and was prejudicial, causing a miscarriage of justice.
They also argue that other evidence, including photos and images relating to her mushroom foraging hobby that support their argument the deaths were an accident, had been wrongly excluded. The appeal document also cites jury deliberations.
Jury accommodation concerns
The case drew worldwide attention, and steps were taken throughout the trial to ensure the jury was not influenced by family, friends, or the media. When deliberations began, jurors had to stay in supervised accommodation with limited contact with the outside world until a decision was reached. Patterson's lawyers argue a "fundamental irregularity" took place which "fatally undermined" the integrity of the verdicts. It is claimed that due to the attention the case brought, room shortages meant jurors ended up in a hotel that also had members of the prosecution, a key police witness, and journalists staying there.
The judge at the time said the jury had a whole floor to themselves and there was no evidence they had any contact with anyone linked to the case who was also staying there. While Patterson's team did not raise concerns during the trial, they said in their appeal filing: "[This] requires the quashing of the convictions and an order for a re-trial so that justice cannot only be done but be seen to be done."
Prosecution's separate appeal
The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has filed a separate appeal, arguing that Patterson's current sentence is "manifestly inadequate" given that three people were killed and another left seriously ill. Prosecutors also claim that the judge allowed the expectation that Patterson would spend extended periods in solitary confinement to protect her from fellow prisoners to influence his sentence. If the prosecution's appeal succeeds, Patterson's parole period could be extended beyond 33 years, or she could be given a life sentence without parole.
The appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Victorian Court of Appeal in Melbourne and is set to last two days. Under Australian law, appeals are heard and decided by a bench of three senior judges, not a new jury. Defence teams must prove specific flaws in the original trial, such as improper admission of evidence or procedural irregularities. Should the appeal be successful, the case would be eligible for a retrial or acquittal.
