How Erin Patterson’s appeal could backfire spectacularly: WAYNE FLOWER on mushroom chef’s final roll of the dice… and why, in his view, it’s doomed to fail
Convicted triple murderer Erin Patterson has launched an appeal against her conviction and sentence, in what columnist Wayne Flower argues is a doomed final attempt to overturn her life sentence for the fatal 2023 "mushroom lunch" poisonings. The appeal hearing at the Supreme Court of Victoria was attended by Ian Wilkinson, the sole survivor of the meal, and the detective who investigated the case, while Patterson herself appeared via video link. Flower contends the central ground of appeal, concerning the sequestered jury being housed near police and prosecutors, was dismissed by the presiding judge as insubstantial, making a successful outcome unlikely.
Patterson was found guilty last year of murdering Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, who died after eating death cap mushrooms in Beef Wellingtons served at her Leongatha home on 29 July 2023; Ian Wilkinson survived after being critically ill, and Patterson was also convicted of his attempted murder. Justice Christopher Beale sentenced her to life imprisonment on 8 September, with a non-parole period of 33 years. Before sentencing, Wilkinson had publicly offered Patterson forgiveness while still pursuing justice for the deaths, and Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions has argued she should die behind bars.
- Erin Patterson appeals mushroom murder conviction and life sentence
- Commentator says her main appeal ground was dismissed as weak
- Survivor Ian Wilkinson attended the Supreme Court hearing
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who believe the appeal has genuine merit would argue that the right to challenge a criminal conviction is a fundamental safeguard of justice, existing precisely to catch errors in long, complex and emotionally charged trials. They would point to specific legal grounds an appellate court must take seriously, such as contested jury directions, disputed admissibility of evidence, or arguments about how expert testimony was presented, and would caution that public revulsion at a crime should never be allowed to substitute for rigorous scrutiny of the legal process that produced a verdict.
The case against
Those confident the appeal will fail would note that Patterson was convicted by a jury that spent weeks weighing extensive forensic, medical, digital and circumstantial evidence before reaching a unanimous verdict, and that appellate courts intervene only where a genuine legal error is shown, not simply because a defendant disputes the outcome. They would argue that the trial was conducted with experienced counsel and judicial oversight, that the evidentiary case was described by legal observers as unusually strong, and that this combination makes it likely the conviction will withstand appellate review.