Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson is appealing – here's what you need to knowThe Australian, who notoriously poisoned her family members, is trying to overturn her conviction.6 hrs agoWorld

Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson is appealing - here's what you need to know6 hours agoKaty WatsonAustralia correspondentWhy is Australia's mushroom murder back in the headlines?A year after her blockbuster trial, Australia's notorious mushroom murderer is facing court again, in a bid to overturn her conviction.Erin Patterson was jailed for life last September for murdering three…

CrimeAugust 17, 2026News Info Wire5 min read

Mushroom murderer Erin Patterson is appealing – here’s what you need to know

6 hours ago

Katy WatsonAustralia correspondent

A year after her blockbuster trial, Australia’s notorious mushroom murderer is facing court again, in a bid to overturn her conviction.

Erin Patterson was jailed for life last September for murdering three relatives and trying to kill another with a toxic mushroom meal she served at her home in Leongatha, Victoria, in 2023.

But the 51-year-old says she did not receive a fair trial, citing difficulties with evidence, the actions of the prosecution, and an unusual mishap with the jury while they deliberated on their verdicts.

Meanwhile that Erin Patterson’s case is heard, prosecutors will also be appealing her sentence. The judge said Patterson could apply for parole after 33 years, but the prosecution states that’s “manifestly inadequate” and the triple murderer should never be freed.

What did Erin Patterson do?

After serving them individual portions of beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms at her home in rural Victoria in 2023.

Patterson killed her in-laws Don and Gail Patterson, both 70, and Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, 66.

EPA

Erin Patterson, 51, was jailed last year for the triple murders

Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, a local pastor, survived the lunch after weeks in hospital and still has ongoing health issues related to the poisoning.

Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was meant to attend the lunch but cancelled at the last minute, in part due to his belief that his wife had repeatedly tried to poison him over several years.

After the trial, it was revealed that he had become so violently ill after eating a number of of her meals previously that he had been in a coma, a large part of his bowel had been surgically removed, and his family were informed to say goodbye to him twice as he was not expected to survive his ailments.

Erin Patterson maintained throughout the trial that she never meant to kill her relatives – that it was all a terrible accident, and her lies and attempts to dispose of evidence in the aftermath of the lunch were because she was panicking she would be blamed for the deaths.

Supplied

Erin’s in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, died within days of eating the mushrooms

What is Patterson arguing?

Patterson won’t be attending the appeal in person. She’s chosen to appear via video link from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, the maximum security prison on the outskirts of Melbourne where she’s serving her sentence.

Last November, her legal team filed a three-page document outlining the arguments they plan to make in a bid to overturn her conviction.

There are seven grounds for this appeal. It will be heard by three judges.

Firstly, there are bits of evidence Patterson’s lawyers say the jurors should never have seen: for example, mobile phone tracking data that indicated she’d travelled to places where death cap mushrooms were recently spotted.

Her lawyers also argue that evidence from “Facebook friends” should not have been allowed. That included online messages in which she ranted about her in-laws as well as her estranged husband Simon Patterson, at one point calling him a “deadbeat”.

All that evidence, Patterson’s team says, was not relevant and prejudicial, causing a substantial miscarriage of justice.

EPA

Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch, but still has ongoing health issues

But her lawyers also argue that other pieces of evidence would have assisted Patterson in court. Photos and images relating to her hobby as a long-time mushroom forager – and supporting their argument that the deaths were a tragic accident – had been wrongly excluded, the defence says.

Then there are their issues with the prosecution. Patterson’s team say they were inconsistent about a motive, starting the trial by saying they wouldn’t argue a particular motive, but ending it by implying there was one.

They also criticise the five days Patterson was cross-examined by barrister Nannette Rogers. At times it felt tense witnessing the two sparring in the courtroom, with Rogers accusing her of repeatedly lying. Patterson argues it was “unfair and oppressive”.

But the most intriguing aspect of the appeal document submitted by Erin Patterson’s lawyers relates to the jury deliberations.

Because there was so much hype around the case, there were steps taken throughout the trial to ensure the jury wasn’t influenced by friends, family or the media. When they began deliberating, they had to stay in supervised accommodation, with little to no contact with the outside world, until they reached a decision.

EPA

The trial attracted huge media interest, in Australia and abroad

But according to Patterson’s lawyers, a “fundamental irregularity” occurred which “fatally undermined” the integrity of the verdicts.

It turns out that room shortages caused by the media frenzy in the regional towns around the courthouse meant the jury wound up sharing a hotel with members of the prosecution, a key police witness, and journalists.

The jury had a whole hotel floor to themselves, and the judge at the time said there was no evidence they had any interaction with anyone linked to the case.

Patterson’s team didn’t raise any concerns during the trial, but in their appeal filing stated: “[This] requires the quashing of the convictions and an order for a re-trial so that justice cannot only be done but be seen to be done.”

What is the prosecution saying?

The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is appealing over the length of Patterson’s sentence.

Justice Christopher Beale last year agreed that Patterson’s crimes were the worst of their kind, but said his decision to allow parole after 33 years was influenced by the “harsh prison conditions” she faced.

He noted that she’d already spent 15 months in solitary confinement at the time of her sentencing. In solitary confinement, prisoners cannot mix and meals are delivered via a small opening in the cell door.

For her own safety, he added, there was a “substantial chance” that she would be held in an isolation wing “for years to come” as of the notoriety of her case.

What happens next?

The outcome of the appeal will not be known immediately after these hearings as the decision could take months.

If the three judges in the Court of Appeal choose to overturn her convictions, there are two options: a retrial or acquittal.

If the prosecution’s appeal is successful, Erin Patterson could see her parole period being extended beyond 33 years. Or she may even be sentenced to life without parole.