Full house at the Supreme Court for triple murderer’s appeal

THE Leongatha ‘Mushroom Murder’ case was back in court again this week for the first time since Monday, September 8 last year when Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Erin Patterson to life in prison with a minimum of 33 years to serve.

It followed a high-profile jury trial, which ran from April to July 2025, where Ms Patterson was found guilty of murdering her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson and her aunt-in-law Heather Wilkinson, all of Korumburra.

She was also found guilty of the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.

At issue, in the Court of Appeal, on Wednesday and Thursday, August 19 and 20, are two matters; one, an application by Ms Patterson for the court to review and overturn the findings of guilt from the trial, and two, an application by the Department of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed.

As the family members, legal representatives, media and interested members of the public filed in ahead of the start to proceedings at 10.15am, the first image they saw was of the convicted murderer, Erin Patterson, on a large video screen at the side of the court room.

Her trademark, long black hair was out across her shoulders, she wore a pair of oversized, black-rim glasses and a royal blue jumper.

Ms Patterson looked well and certainly in better shape than she did when she hobbled out of court, clutching the sides of the court furniture after her sentencing last September.

All is in readiness for an expected two-day hearing, accessing Ms Patterson’s application for an appeal, the substance of the appeal against her conviction and the application by the DPP for resentencing.

It is expected that there will be seven grounds for Ms Patterson’s appeal, as follows:

* A fundamental irregularity occurred while the jury was sequestered that has fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts

* The mobile phone tower data applied to the death cap mushroom sightings at Loch and Outtrim should not have been allowed as its probative value was outweighed by its unfair prejudice

* The judge made a mistake when ruling out photos and videos of mushrooms found on an SD card at the applicant’s home

* The “Facebook evidence” should not have been allowed, again because its probative value was outweighed by its unfair prejudice

* The “unfair and oppressive” cross-examination of Ms Patterson resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice

* Problems with the prosecutor’s closing address

* Claims the prosecution shifted its position from no motive, to implying there was a motive.

Three main decisions are open to the three judges; (1.) dismiss the appeal (the original convictions and sentence remain in place), (2.) set aside the conviction and order a new trial or (3.) set aside the conviction and enter an acquittal.

Although fresh evidence can be introduced if the relevant legal requirements are met, typically an appeal will examine the trial record, transcript, exhibits, judge's directions, submissions and the legal arguments to determine whether the conviction should stand.