Erin Patterson’s 33‑year minimum term ‘manifestly inadequate’, appeal hears

An Australian court has been told that Erin Patterson’s crimes were “truly dreadful” and that she should never be allowed to leave prison, as Crown prosecutors appeal against a sentence they describe as “manifestly inadequate” for allowing the possibility of parole. Patterson, 51, was jailed for life after serving a beef Wellington laced with death cap mushrooms to her in‑laws and another relative at her Victoria home in 2023, killing three and seriously injuring a fourth. She attended the Court of Appeal in Melbourne via video link from prison, where judges reserved their decisions on both the prosecution’s bid for a longer minimum term and Patterson’s own challenge to her convictions—meaning it will likely be weeks or months before the outcome is known.

Prosecutors outlined the “dreadful” nature of the crime, emphasising the “betrayal of trust” of family members whom Patterson had invited to lunch. It was, they said, the culmination of a plan she had “orchestrated” for months, involving the collection and preparation of enough death caps to kill, and “concocting a fantastic lie” to explain the meal. The lunch guests—Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66—had been good to Patterson and her children over many years, prosecutors noted. “Not only did the respondent sit by and watch her victims consume the deadly meal over chit‑chat and banter, but the meal ended with a prayer for her, following her lie about having been diagnosed with cancer.” As the guests lay critically ill, Patterson did not admit to using foraged mushrooms, choosing instead to lie to police and health workers, maintaining her deception even when she knew some victims were on life support.

At sentencing last September, Justice Christopher Beale said he was giving Patterson a “glimmer of hope” of release solely because of her “harsh” prison conditions, telling her there was “a substantial chance that, for your protection, you will continue to be held in solitary confinement for years to come”. Prosecutors argue this was “overstated”, maintaining that her conditions would improve over time as her notoriety faded. In court, prosecutor Brendan Kissane listed activities open to Patterson, including an exercise yard and access to hobbies such as crocheting—at which point, according to reporters, the triple murderer closed her eyes and shook her head.

While prosecutors say Patterson should never be freed, they argue that if the appeal court disagrees, it should at least increase the minimum sentence, calling the 33‑year term “manifestly inadequate”. The minimum term open to the judge for the offences was 30 years; in written arguments, they said an additional three years “utterly fails to reflect the gravity of the offending or vindicate the dignity of each of the four victims”. The only surviving guest, Heather’s husband Ian Wilkinson, has never fully recovered from his ordeal.

Arguing for the punishment to remain unchanged, Patterson’s lawyers said the judge’s reasoning had been “impeccable”, clearly taking into account all relevant considerations and making appropriate findings about the seriousness of the matter. They also challenged the convictions themselves, arguing that last year’s trial was undermined by a “catastrophic” mix‑up that led to the jury staying at the same hotel as prosecutors and a key witness, and that some evidence presented to the jury was too speculative and caused a miscarriage of justice. The court’s reserved decision will determine whether Patterson’s notoriety—and her incarceration—endures for decades to come.