Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ)
Erin Patterson has lost her appeal against her 2025 convictions on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. She will now spend the rest of her life in prison, after the Victorian Court of Appeal also upheld a prosecution appeal and removed the 33-year non-parole period set by the trial judge.
Known as the “mushroom murderer”, Patterson has attracted global attention. She was found to have mixed death cap mushrooms into the beef wellington she served the relatives of her estranged husband at a lunch at her house in July 2023. Patterson denied the offences, claiming the poisoning was accidental.
After an 11-week trial, Patterson was convicted on all counts and sentenced to life imprisonment. Justice Christopher Beale fixed a non-parole period of 33 years, meaning she could have been released in 2056, at the age of approximately 82.
This morning, the three judges of the Court of Appeal – Stephen McLeish, Leslie Taylor and Peter Kidd – dismissed her appeal, and allowed the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) against her sentence. Patterson watched the judgment by video link from the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, where she is being held.
What did the court decide?
Appeals are not a rehearing. The Court of Appeal does not hear the evidence again or ask if it would have reached the same verdict as the jury. Patterson had to satisfy the court that the jury’s verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, or that an error or irregularity at trial resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The process has two steps. The court first decides whether to grant leave to appeal, which is permission for the appeal to proceed. If leave is granted, it then decides whether the appeal succeeds. Leave can be granted and the appeal still dismissed, which is what happened here.
Patterson was not the only party dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial. The DPP, Brendan Kissane, appealed against her sentence, arguing that it was “manifestly inadequate”.
When Patterson was sentenced, the prosecution urged Justice Beale to impose life imprisonment with no prospect of parole. However, the judge fixed a non-parole period of 33 years, citing among other matters the onerous protective conditions of Patterson’s custody. The DPP argued against this.
Patterson’s arguments
Patterson’s lawyers raised seven grounds of appeal. These fell into three groups: the accommodation provided to the jury, the evidence, and the conduct of the prosecution at trial. The court granted leave to appeal on the first two grounds only. Leave was refused on the other five.
The first ground concerned the jury’s accommodation. For part of the trial, the jury had been accommodated in the same hotel as members of the prosecution team and a police witness. Patterson’s lawyer’s argued this was a “fundamental irregularity” because it compromised the appearance of justice, which requires the jury to be independent.
At the August hearing, Patterson’s barrister, Richard Edney, conceded there was no evidence police or prosecutors had communicated with jurors. The court granted leave on this ground but rejected the appeal, finding there was no real possibility the arrangement had affected the jury’s verdicts.
The second ground concerned the phone tower evidence used to suggest Patterson had travelled to areas where death cap mushrooms had been sighted. Her lawyers argued this evidence was speculative and should not have been admitted. The court granted leave for this appeal, but held the evidence was admissible, and therefore dismissed the ground.
The remaining five grounds did not get past the leave stage. They included the argument that photos of death cap mushrooms found on an SD card at Patterson’s home were wrongly excluded by the trial judge. Her lawyers said this exclusion effectively “forced” her to testify in order to explain her interest in foraging, and so cost her the right to silence.
Patterson’s lawyers also objected to evidence from her “friends” on Facebook, who gave evidence about her hiding mushrooms in food for their health benefits, and to the conduct of the prosecution.
In addition, they argued that Nanette Rogers’ five days of cross-examination were unfair and oppressive, and the prosecution’s closing address introduced a motive – anger with her in-laws – a change of prosecution trial strategy that was impermissible.
The sentence appeal
With the convictions standing, the court turned to the DPP’s appeal. It allowed the appeal and set aside the 33-year non-parole period.
Under section 11 of the Sentencing Act 1991, a court sentencing an offender to life imprisonment must fix a non-parole period unless it considers the nature of the offence, or the offender’s past history, makes that inappropriate.
Justice McLeish described Patterson’s conduct as characterised by “an elaborate series of deceptions”, pointing to her false cancer claim, the planning of the lunch, the destruction of evidence and the “cruel breach of trust” of her relatives. He said her conduct deserved to be “denounced in the strongest terms”:
The Court of Appeal was therefore satisfied the nature of Patterson’s offences made a non-parole period inappropriate.
Life imprisonment without a non-parole period is the most severe sentence available in Victoria, and one the courts have imposed in only a small number of cases.
What happens next?
Patterson has one remaining avenue: an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.
The High Court does not hear every case brought to it. Special leave is granted in only a small proportion of applications, generally where a question of legal principle of public importance arises or where the interests of justice require it.
The Court of Appeal’s orders anticipate any such application being filed by November 27.
If special leave is refused, or no application is made, today’s decision is final.
The 2056 date at which Patterson could have applied for parole no longer exists. She will remain in prison for the rest of her life.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/10/30/mushroom-murderer-erin-patterson-has-lost-her-appeal-and-received-a-harsher-sentence-legal-experts-explain-why/