Erin Patterson’s Appeal Pits a ‘Catastrophic’ Trial Against a Prosecution That Says the System Worked

Erin Patterson’s Appeal Pits a ‘Catastrophic’ Trial Against a Prosecution That Says the System Worked
Erin Patterson’s appeal has turned on a stark question: can a conviction stand when the fairness of the trial process is itself under challenge? Her lawyers say the answer is no; prosecutors argue the alleged defects were either harmless or unsupported by evidence.

At Victoria’s Court of Appeal, Patterson’s counsel described the decision to house jurors in the same hotel as police and prosecution lawyers during deliberations as a “catastrophic” failure that compromised public confidence in the verdict. The defence says the absence of hotel CCTV and any opportunity to question jurors created an “evidentiary vacuum,” even if there is no proof that anyone actually communicated with them.

The prosecution’s response is narrower and more concrete. Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC, said there was “no substance” to the sequestration challenge and “no actual contact” between jurors and outside parties. In his account, the safeguards functioned as intended, although he conceded the hotel arrangement increased the risk of an irregularity. The judges appeared to focus on that gap between a risk to the process and proof that the risk affected the verdict.

The appeal also tests the trial judge’s handling of evidence. Patterson argues that mobile-phone tower data and death-cap sightings posted to iNaturalist were technically complex and unfairly prejudicial, while photographs and videos of mushrooms found on an SD card should have supported her claim that she foraged innocently. Prosecutors counter that the disputed material formed part of a broader evidentiary picture showing she had an opportunity to source the mushrooms.

Patterson further challenges Facebook messages about her in-laws, six days of cross-examination and the prosecution’s closing address, alleging repeated misstatements and a late shift on motive. The judges, however, questioned why several objections were not pressed at trial, suggesting the defence may have made a strategic choice to use the alleged errors rather than seek a discharge. The court will also hear the DPP’s separate argument that Patterson’s life sentence, with a 33-year non-parole period, was too lenient.