Mushroom killer must stay in jail forever for ‘truly dreadful’ crime, appeal court told
An Australian appeals court has heard prosecutors argue that Erin Patterson, convicted of murdering three relatives with a death cap mushroom-laced beef Wellington, should never be released from prison. Crown lawyers told the Court of Appeal in Melbourne that her original sentence, which allows for parole eligibility after 33 years, is "manifestly inadequate" given the calculated and prolonged nature of her deception. The hearing also included a separate challenge from Patterson's own lawyers seeking to overturn her convictions entirely, with judges reserving judgment on both matters.
Patterson, 51, was jailed for life in 2023 after killing her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66, and attempting to kill Heather's husband Ian Wilkinson, who has never fully recovered. Prosecutors described her crime as a months-long "orchestrated" plan involving foraging death cap mushrooms and a fabricated cancer diagnosis to lure victims to lunch, arguing the sentencing judge overstated how harsh her prison conditions would remain. They contend her minimum term should be increased from 33 to at least 30 years plus more, while Patterson's defence maintains the original judge's reasoning was "impeccable".
- Prosecutors want mushroom killer Erin Patterson jailed for life with no parole
- Current sentence allows parole eligibility after 33 years, called "manifestly inadequate"
- Patterson's own lawyers separately appealing to overturn her convictions
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those who consider the current sentence too lenient argue that a crime of this severity and calculation, deliberately poisoning multiple family members with a fatal toxin, warrants the law's ultimate sanction of imprisonment without any prospect of release. They contend that a non-parole period risks under-representing the harm caused, the breach of familial trust involved, and the need for sentencing to reflect just deserts and general deterrence in cases of premeditated, multiple-victim killing. For the families of victims and for public confidence in the justice system, they argue, only a sentence with no possibility of parole adequately marks the gravity of what occurred.
The case against
Those who support retaining the possibility of parole argue that Australian sentencing law generally favours proportionality and the retention of some prospect of eventual release, even in the gravest cases, reserving true whole-of-life terms for the narrowest category of offending. They contend that an offender's capacity for insight, rehabilitation and change over decades in custody should not be foreclosed at the point of sentencing, and that parole boards, not the original court, are best placed to assess risk and readiness for release many years hence. This view holds that reserving judgment on release is not leniency but a considered commitment to individualised justice, applied consistently rather than as an exception driven by public outcry.