Erin Patterson Appeals Conviction, Alleges 'Substantial Miscarriage of Justice' in High‑Profile Mushroom Poisoning Case

Erin Patterson lodges appeal claiming 'substantial miscarriage of justice'

Erin Patterson, 51, has filed formal grounds of appeal alleging her 2023 convictions for poisoning relatives with toxic Amanita phalloides (death cap) mushrooms involved a "substantial miscarriage of justice," court documents published on Wednesday show.

Background: Patterson was convicted in July by a 12‑person jury of murdering three relatives — Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson — and of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson after serving a beef Wellington laced with poisonous fungi at a 2023 lunch at her home in Leongatha, Victoria. She maintained throughout the more than two‑month trial that the dish was accidentally contaminated by death cap mushrooms. In September she was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non‑parole period that would make her eligible for release after 33 years.

Grounds of appeal

In the documents lodged with the Victorian Court of Appeal, Patterson's defence advances several complaints about how the trial was conducted. Key points include:

• Allegation of a "fundamental irregularity" that occurred while jurors were sequestered, which the defence says "fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts"; the papers do not provide further public detail of this claim.
• An accusation that the prosecution engaged in an "unfair and oppressive" cross‑examination of Patterson during the trial.
• Arguments that some evidence admitted by the trial judge was not relevant to the case, while other material potentially favourable to the defence was wrongly excluded.
• A request from Patterson that she not be required to attend any oral hearing of the appeal in person.

Court status and next steps

Although several media outlets reported that the Court of Appeal had accepted the appeal, the court clarified on Wednesday that the appeal has been filed but has not yet been accepted for hearing. The Court of Appeal will decide whether to grant permission for a full appeal hearing and, if so, whether that hearing will be in person or remote.

Prosecution response: Separately, prosecutors have appealed the sentence itself, describing the non‑parole term as "manifestly inadequate." Both the safety of the appeals process and how the court handles any contested procedural issues will shape the next chapter of this case.

Ms Patterson's lawyers say the trial was affected by procedural errors and improper evidentiary rulings; prosecutors maintain the conviction and sentence were justified.

The appeal papers and any scheduling decisions from the Court of Appeal will determine whether Patterson's conviction is re‑examined and if an oral hearing will proceed.