Erin Patterson has lost her appeal against her murder convictions and instead been re-sentenced to life behind bars without the possibility of parole.
Patterson was convicted of murdering three people and attempting to murder a fourth by serving them a meal containing poisonous death cap mushrooms.
A panel of judges dismissed her challenge and upheld prosecutors’ appeal against her original 33-year non-parole period.
In short
Patterson’s lawyers raised seven grounds of appeal.
The court rejected all seven.
Prosecutors appealed her sentence, arguing she should never be eligible for parole.
The court agreed.
Patterson’s last avenue is to apply for the High Court to hear her appeal.
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 was 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.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
Her lawyers argued this “fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts” and that she should get a retrial.
They also argued 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 argued 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 also appealed, seeking a tougher sentence.
They argued the 33-year non-parole period was “manifestly inadequate,” and that Patterson should be given a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Prosecutors alleged 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.
Outcome
A panel of three judges considered arguments from both sides.
Of the seven grounds raised by Patterson’s defence, the judges rejected five and granted leave to appeal on two: the jury’s accommodation arrangements and the use of mobile phone data.
After considering these arguments, the judges ruled they were not successful.
The judges also sided with the prosecutors, finding Patterson’s actions were “extraordinarily cold and calculated” and must be “denounced in the strongest terms”.
So, what happens next for Patterson?
Her last remaining legal option is to apply to the High Court for permission to appeal.
The first step is seeking ‘leave to appeal’, which means asking the High Court to agree to hear the case.
If leave is refused, the appeal process ends and Patterson remains in prison.
If leave is granted, her legal team will have another opportunity to argue her case before the court.
High Court decisions are final and cannot be appealed.
