Erin Patterson has appealed convictions for three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after a July 2023 lunch in Leongatha where death-cap mushrooms poisoned four relatives. Defence lawyers argue the trial was undermined by procedural errors — including jurors staying in the same hotel as a police witness — and by contested cellphone-tower evidence and allegedly oppressive cross-examination. Prosecutors are separately appealing the perceived leniency of Patterson’s sentence and seek life without parole. If the appeal succeeds, the convictions could be overturned and a retrial ordered.
Death-Cap Lunch Appeal: Erin Patterson Challenges Three Murder Convictions
FILE - Erin Patterson is escorted away from the Supreme Court of Victoria in Melbourne, Australia, on Sept. 8, 2025. (Joel Carrett/AAP Image via AP, File)
Melbourne — Erin Patterson has appealed her convictions in a high-profile poisoning case that left three people dead and another critically ill after a July 2023 lunch in Leongatha. The Victoria Court of Appeal convened a three-judge panel to hear two days of argument over Patterson’s convictions on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, all linked to beef Wellington pastries served at her rural home.
Patterson, 51, was sentenced in September to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of at least 33 years. Prosecutors are challenging that sentence as too lenient and are seeking a term of life without the possibility of parole.
The defence advanced several grounds for appeal. Senior counsel Richard Edney argued that jurors were improperly accommodated at the same hotel as a police witness and members of the prosecution team, calling it “a very serious breach of sequestration.”
"This was a very serious breach of sequestration," Edney told the court.
Defence lawyer Veronika Drago also attacked aspects of the trial evidence. The prosecution introduced telecommunications testimony showing Patterson’s phone connected to mobile towers near Outtrim and Loch; Drago said the data only showed the phone might have been in the area and cautioned that such evidence was risky and unfair to rely on.
"That in and of itself, in our submission, illustrates just how dangerous and unfair that evidence was," Drago told the appeal judges.
Other grounds raised by defence lawyers included a claim that prosecutor Nanette Rogers’ five-day cross-examination of Patterson was "unfair and oppressive," and that trial judge Christopher Bale allowed prejudicial testimony from people listed as Patterson’s Facebook "friends."
The victims were Simon Patterson’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson; Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived after several weeks in hospital. Simon Patterson had been invited to the meal but did not attend.
Patterson maintained at trial that the poisoning was accidental. No poison was found, and prosecutors previously said they had suspected Patterson of deliberately making her husband ill on earlier occasions; charges relating to alleged earlier attempts on the husband were dropped before the main trial.
Patterson watched the appeal hearing by video from prison and did not appear in person. If the Court of Appeal finds merit in the defence arguments, it could overturn convictions and order a retrial.
What Happens Next: The appeal hearing will determine whether procedural or evidentiary errors at trial justify quashing the convictions, and the Crown’s challenge to the sentence will determine whether Patterson’s non-parole period should be removed.
Help us improve.
