Erin Patterson heads to court to appeal murder convictions

Erin Patterson will return to court tomorrow, almost a year after she was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years.

The 51-year-old was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder for intentionally serving her estranged husband’s relatives death cap mushrooms.

Now, Patterson is asking Victoria’s Court of Appeal for permission to overturn her murder convictions.

At the same hearing, prosecutors will argue her sentence was too lenient and should be extended.

Poisoning

In July 2023, Erin Patterson hosted her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and her husband’s aunt and uncle, Heather and Ian Wilkinson, for lunch.

Patterson served individual beef Wellingtons which she said contained dried mushrooms.

Following the meal, all four became critically ill.

Don, Gail, and Heather died, while Ian spent several weeks in hospital.

In July 2025, Patterson was found guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

The sentence

In September 2025, Victorian Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale handed Erin Patterson three life sentences, with the possibility of parole after 33 years.

Patterson was also sentenced to 25 years in prison for attempted murder.

Her sentences are being served concurrently (at the same time).

Beale said his decision to allow parole was influenced by the “harsh prison conditions” Patterson was facing, including the “likely prospect” of long periods in solitary confinement.

Appeal

Patterson’s new legal team lodged an appeal in November 2025, setting out seven grounds.

One argument is that a “fundamental irregularity” occurred during the trial, because the jury unknowingly stayed at the same hotel as the lead detective and two prosecution members while they deliberated.

You have read 0 articles this year.

Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.

Her lawyers argue this “fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts” and that she should get a retrial.

They are also arguing some evidence should not have been put to the jury, such as messages to her Facebook friends.

Defendants in criminal cases are not required to testify; however, Patterson chose to do so.

Witnesses and defendants in cases are questioned by both the defence (called examination-in-chief) and prosecution (cross-examination).

Patterson’s lawyers are set to argue the prosecution’s five-day cross-examination of her was “unfair and oppressive”.

Under cross-examination, Patterson admitted to wanting to lead her in-laws to believe she had cancer.

She also said she was planning gastric bypass surgery at a Melbourne clinic, but admitted under prosecution questioning that the clinic did not offer that surgery.

Prosecution appeal

Prosecutors are also appealing, seeking a tougher sentence.

They argue the 33-year non-parole period was “manifestly inadequate,” and that Patterson should be given a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Prosecutors allege it was wrong for the sentencing judge to find it was likely that Patterson would be held in “solitary confinement for years to come,” and that this assumption, which in their view was wrong, shaped how the non-parole period was set.