An Australian woman who was found guilty of murdering three of her husband’s relatives and attempting to murder a fourth, by serving them a beef Wellington laced with poisonous mushrooms, is expected to appeal her conviction on Wednesday.
Erin Patterson, 51, was convicted of the crimes last year after a two-month trial that captivated the nation. The case, which became known as the “mushroom murders,” featured in daily podcasts, television series and books.
What happened?
The case centered on a lunch in 2023 that took place in the rural town of Leongatha, in the state of Victoria.
Ms. Patterson had invited her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, who declined to attend. But his parents, Gail and Don Patterson, went, along with Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, and her husband, Ian Wilkinson.
Within a week of the lunch, three of the group were dead. They had symptoms indicative of poisoning by death cap mushrooms. Mr. Wilkinson fell critically ill but survived, and later testified at Ms. Patterson’s trial.
No motive for the crime has ever been presented.
During the trial, the court heard from more than 50 witnesses, including Ms. Patterson. She has always maintained her innocence and claims the deaths were a terrible accident.
After seven days of deliberation, a jury found Ms. Patterson guilty. She was sentenced to life imprisonment but will become eligible for parole after 33 years, when she is aged 82.
Why is the case back in court?
Ms. Patterson’s case will return to court this week as she seeks to appeal her conviction in a two-day hearing. If she is successful, the court could quash her conviction and order a retrial, or overturn her conviction and acquit her.
At the same time, government prosecutors are appealing Ms. Patterson’s sentence.
In a submission last year, they said “the non-parole period of 33 years is manifestly inadequate.”
Both parties will present their case this week before a panel of three judges who are expected to hand down their decisions at a later date.
What is Ms. Patterson appealing?
In her appeal application last year, Ms. Patterson said a “substantial miscarriage of justice” had occurred and listed seven reasons her conviction should be overturned.
They included what she called an “unfair and oppressive” cross-examination by the prosecution, as well as issues with some evidence presented at trial, such as messages with her Facebook friends.
Ms. Patterson’s application also said that while the jury was sequestered during their verdict deliberations — as is often the case in high-profile cases — a “fundamental irregularity occurred” that “fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts.” This gave rise to the need for a retrial “so that justice cannot only be done but be seen to be done,” the application said.
At the time, local media reported that the jury stayed at the same hotel as journalists, key witnesses and members of the prosecution.
Ms. Patterson will not attend court in person this week.
If the court rules against her, she could still take her appeal to the High Court.
What does the prosecution say?
The prosecution said in their 2025 submission that the trial judge erred in finding that Ms. Patterson might be held in solitary confinement for years, when there was no evidence that this would be the case.
This “infected” the judge’s assessment of Ms. Patterson’s likely conditions behind bars and the judge’s decision to deem her eligible for parole after 33 years, the application said.
Government prosecutors argued that there was “an error” in Ms. Patterson’s sentence.
During the trial, the prosecution argued that Ms. Patterson’s crimes were so horrific that she deserved the highest possible sentence and should not be eligible for parole.