Erin Patterson will find out on Friday whether she could face a longer prison sentence, a retrial or a new trial, as Victoria's Court of Appeal delivers its decision on her challenge to her triple murder convictions and the Director of Public Prosecutions' appeal against her sentence.
The court of appeal, comprising justices Lesley Taylor, Stephen McLeish and Peter Kidd, is set to rule on the two appeals from 10am on Friday after hearing arguments from Patterson's legal team and prosecutors in August. Patterson, 52, is not expected to attend the decision in person.
Patterson was last year sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years for the murders of her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt Heather Wilkinson, after she hosted them for lunch. She was also convicted of the attempted murder of Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms after spending weeks in hospital.
Patterson has appealed against her convictions, while the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against her sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. In August, the court heard Patterson should have been given no possibility of ever being released from prison, or a non-parole period so lengthy that she was likely to die behind bars.
Her lawyers advanced seven grounds for her appeal, including that allowing jurors to stay in the same hotel as police and the prosecution while they deliberated over their verdicts represented a "catastrophic" failure of the justice system. Richard Edney, for Patterson, said the failure to properly separate the jury during their deliberations was a fundamental irregularity that had denied her a fair trial. "What we say has occurred here in the applicant's trial was an inexplicable and perhaps still unexplained failure of a process," Edney told the court in August.
They also argued that trial judge Christopher Beale erred in ruling that photos and videos related to mushrooms, found on an SD card in Patterson's home, were inadmissible, as the material tended to support her evidence that she foraged for mushrooms.
During the hearings, Brendan Kissane KC, the DPP, said that even though Patterson would be aged in her 80s by the time she was eligible for parole, her sentence was still too lenient. When asked whether a longer non-parole period would essentially damn Patterson to dying behind bars, and had “some artifice of it being life with life”, Kissane told the court: “It has its harsh aspect to it, of course, we accept that.” “But in our submission that is not a matter that is outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.”
There are several possible outcomes: leave to appeal is not granted; leave to appeal is granted but the appeal dismissed; leave to appeal is granted, the appeal upheld and a retrial ordered; or leave to appeal is granted, the appeal upheld and an acquittal entered. If either of the final two decisions is handed down, there will be no need to rule on the DPP's sentence appeal. If not, either the appeal fails or it succeeds and Patterson is resentenced by the court of appeal.
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The ruling will determine whether Patterson faces a longer prison term or a retrial, which could either increase her time behind bars or lead to a new trial.
- The case has drawn widespread attention in Australia and beyond due to the nature of the murders and the legal challenges surrounding the jury's deliberations.
- The decision may set a precedent for how courts handle jury separation and the admissibility of evidence in high-profile trials.
Background
Erin Patterson was convicted in 2025 of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after serving a lunch of beef wellington containing death cap mushrooms to her ex-husband's parents and aunt. Ian Wilkinson survived after weeks in hospital. She was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years. The DPP appealed the sentence as manifestly inadequate, while Patterson appealed her convictions, citing irregularities in the jury's accommodation and the exclusion of certain evidence.
Key Perspectives
Director of Public Prosecutions: Argues the sentence is too lenient and that Patterson should have no possibility of release or a non-parole period long enough that she would likely die in prison, saying the seriousness of the offending outweighs the harshness of such a term.
Erin Patterson's legal team: Contends the trial was irreparably flawed because jurors stayed in the same hotel as police and prosecution during deliberations, a "catastrophic" failure that denied her a fair trial. They also argue the trial judge wrongly excluded photos and videos of mushrooms that would have supported her claim that she foraged for them.
What to Watch
- The court of appeal's decision will be handed down at 10am Friday 30 October 2026.
- If Patterson's appeal is upheld, a retrial could be ordered, prolonging the legal process.
- If the DPP's appeal succeeds, Patterson will be resentenced, potentially to a longer non-parole period or a life term with no parole.
Checked
12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.
Show each claim
- SupportedThe Court of Appeal is to rule on Erin Patterson’s mushroom-murder case.World news | The Guardian: “Erin Patterson is set to find out if she could face a longer prison sentence or a new trial, as Victoria’s highest court hands down its decision on two appeals regarding her triple murder case”
- SupportedVictoria’s highest court is to decide two appeals on Friday, with possible outcomes including a retrial, acquittal or a longer sentence.World news | The Guardian: “There are several possible outcomes to Patterson’s appeal: leave to appeal is not granted; leave to appeal is granted, but her appeal dismissed; leave to appeal is granted, her appeal upheld and a retrial ordered; or her leave to appeal is granted, the appeal upheld, and acquittal entered.”
- SupportedPatterson could face a longer prison sentence or a new trial when the court delivers its decision Friday.World news | The Guardian: “Erin Patterson is set to find out if she could face a longer prison sentence or a new trial”
- SupportedThe court is set to rule from 10am Friday after hearing arguments from Patterson’s legal team and prosecutors in August.World news | The Guardian: “The court of appeal is set to rule on the two appeals from 10am on Friday, after justices Lesley Taylor, Stephen McLeish and Peter Kidd heard arguments from her legal team and prosecutors in August.”
- Not in the sourcesThe Court of Appeal deciding the case comprises justices Lesley Taylor, Stephen McLeish and Peter Kidd.World news | The Guardian: “The court of appeal is set to rule on the two appeals from 10am on Friday, after justices Lesley Taylor, Stephen McLeish and Peter Kidd heard arguments from her legal team and prosecutors in August.”
- SupportedPatterson, 52, was sentenced last year to life imprisonment with a 33-year non-parole period for the murders of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson.World news | The Guardian: “Patterson, 52, is not expected to attend the appeal decision in person. She was last year sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 33 years, for the murders of her estranged husband’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt Heather Wilkinson, after she hosted them for lunch.”
- SupportedPatterson was convicted of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, who survived after spending weeks in hospital.World news | The Guardian: “Patterson was also convicted of the attempted murder of Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms after spending weeks in hospital.”
- SupportedPatterson’s lawyers argued that the jury’s hotel arrangements were a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system.World news | The Guardian: “Her lawyers argued seven grounds for her appeal, including that allowing jurors to stay in the same hotel as police and the prosecution while they deliberated over their verdicts in the triple murder trial represented a “catastrophic” failure of the justice system.”
- SupportedRichard Edney said the jury’s separation failure was an inexplicable and perhaps still unexplained process failure.World news | The Guardian: ““What we say has occurred here in the applicant’s trial was an inexplicable and perhaps still unexplained failure of a process,” Edney told the court in August.”
- SupportedPatterson’s lawyers argued that the trial judge erred by excluding mushroom-related photos and videos found on an SD card in her home.World news | The Guardian: “They also argued that the trial judge Christopher Beale erred in ruling that photos and videos related to mushrooms and found on an SD card in Patterson’s home was inadmissible, as it tended to support her evidence that she foraged for mushrooms.”
- SupportedBrendan Kissane KC, the DPP, said the sentence was too lenient and that its harshness was outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.World news | The Guardian: “During the hearings, Brendan Kissane KC, the DPP, said that even though Patterson would be aged in her 80s by the time she was eligible for parole, her sentence was still too lenient. When asked whether a longer non-parole period would essentially damn Patterson to dying behind bars, and had “some artifice of it being life with life”, Kissane told the court: “It has its harsh aspect to it, of course, we accept that.” “But in our submission that is not a matter that is outweighed by the seriousness of the offending.””
- SupportedIf the conviction appeal results in a retrial or acquittal, there will be no need to decide the DPP’s sentence appeal; otherwise Patterson could be resentenced by the Court of Appeal.World news | The Guardian: “If either of the final two decisions are handed down, there will be no need to rule on the DPP’s sentence appeal. If not, either the appeal fails, or it succeeds and Patterson is resentenced by the court of appeal.”