Erin Patterson's defense team is appealing her conviction for a fatal mushroom poisoning, arguing that a "catastrophic" hotel mix-up during the trial undermined the integrity of the verdicts. The defense contends that jurors deliberating the case stayed in the same hotel as members of the prosecution team, a key police witness, and journalists.
Richard Edney, Patterson's barrister, told appeal judges that this situation "undermined the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of the convictions." He stated that a retrial is necessary "so that justice can not only be done but be seen to be done."
Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane acknowledged the situation was regrettable but suggested it occurred "by accident." He indicated that the central issue is whether any communication occurred between the jury and other individuals. "The evidence as it stands points towards there being no communication," Kissane said. "Once the court accepts that, there's no irregularity in this situation, let alone a fundamental irregularity that goes to the root of the trial."
In addition to the hotel incident, Patterson's lawyers are challenging the prosecution's theory regarding how the death cap mushrooms were located and foraged. Prosecutors had suggested Patterson sought out the mushrooms after two sightings were reported on the citizen science site iNaturalist, and that her phone connected to cell towers in those areas. One of her lawyers, Veronika Drago, argued that this mobile phone evidence only "possibly" indicated Patterson's location and that there was no proof she had accessed or seen the iNaturalist posts. Drago accused prosecutors of "turning nothing into something" and inviting speculation, stating that any value the evidence held was outweighed by its "unfair prejudice."
Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams defended the use of a mobile phone tower expert, asserting that the jury could use the evidence to determine if Patterson had the opportunity to source the mushrooms as alleged. The defense also argued that Facebook messages sent by Patterson months before the lunch, in which she spoke critically of her estranged husband and his parents, were irrelevant and should not have been admitted. Patterson's team further claimed that the chief prosecutor engaged in a protracted and aggressive cross-examination "doused with impermissible conduct" and that the prosecutors' closing address during the trial contained 35 complaints.
Edney explained that defense lawyers at trial were under pressure, and his team discovered additional issues "when the dust [had] settled from the trial."
Prosecutors, in documents filed ahead of the hearing, maintained that "guilty verdicts were inescapable." They argued that the circumstances surrounding the lunch invitation, the serving of Patterson's meal on a separate plate, the different medical outcomes for Patterson compared to her guests, and her "extensive array of incriminating conduct" overwhelmingly pointed to deliberate poisoning.
Prosecutors are expected to continue disputing the appeal arguments and also intend to appeal Patterson's sentence. She is eligible for parole after 33 years, a term that Victoria's Director of Public Prosecution described as "manifestly inadequate" and inappropriate for the judge to have set a fixed parole period.
The three appeal judges are expected to reserve their decision, meaning a ruling may take several weeks.