As it happened: Erin Patterson appeals guilty verdict for mushroom murders

Pinned post from 3.00pm
Go to latest

What we heard on the first day of Erin Patterson’s appeal hearing

By Lachlan Abbott

Thank you for joining our live coverage of the first day of Erin Patterson’s appeal against her conviction for the so-called mushroom murders in Gippsland.

Here’s a quick wrap of what happened today:

• Patterson’s barristers Richard Edney and Veronika Drago outlined their seven grounds for appeal to Justices Stephen McLeish, Lesley Taylor and Peter Kidd.
• Edney said it was “catastrophic” that the jury briefly stayed in same Morwell hotel as prosecution figures and this could have had a “subconscious influence” upon them, constituting a “fundamental irregularity” in Patterson’s trial.
• Drago said cell tower and iNaturalist evidence was “ripe for misuse” and should not have been adduced, while other evidence allegedly showing Patterson’s pre-existing interest in mushroom foraging should have been admitted.
• Patterson’s lawyers also took issue with her cross-examination and trial prosecutor Nanette Rogers’ closing address to the jury. They argued Rogers’ misstated and cherry-picked evidence, but Justice Kidd asked why Patterson’s defence barrister didn’t apply for a mistrial at the time.
• The defence also argued the prosecution changed its case “surreptitiously” in their final address by implying a motive that wasn’t outlined at the start. “A trial by ambush is not permitted,” Drago said.
• Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane, KC, hit back in the afternoon, telling the court there was no evidence jurors and prosecution figures interacted while they were briefly at the same Morwell hotel.
• Kissane conceded trial judge Christopher Beale would not have allowed the same-hotel arrangement had he known earlier, pointing to an email in which Beale’s associate said it was “obviously undesirable”. But he said it was an accident due to Morwell’s limited accommodation options that was fixed and caused no harm.
• Crown prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams also stood by the OPP’s use of different evidence.

The appeal hearing will reconvene tomorrow to hear the OPP’s challenge to Patterson’s sentence, which included a non-parole period of 33 years. Prosecutors had argued Justice Beale should have sentenced Patterson to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole.

See you tomorrow.