Erin Patterson is appealing against her triple murder conviction on seven grounds, including the “irregularity” around sequestering the jury in the same hotel as police and media representatives, and that her cross-examination during the trial was “unfair and oppressive”.
According to documents filed to the Victorian court of appeal and released to the media on Wednesday, Patterson also seeks to appeal on the grounds that cell tower evidence – along with evidence of death cap mushroom sightings near her home – should not have been allowed. She also agued evidence from the so-called Facebook friends, who met Patterson through a true-crime group, should also not have been heard during the trial.
Patterson lodged the appeal documents on Monday, but a date is yet to be set for the case to be heard.
In September, Patterson, 51, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years for the murders of her estranged husband’s parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and his aunt, Heather Wilkinson. She was also convicted of the attempted murder of Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, who survived the lunch after spending weeks in hospital.
While considering its verdict, the jury was sequestered in a hotel where police and members of the media also stayed. According to reports, the matter was raised with authorities by her lawyers at the time, but no concerns about the process were raised in court.
“A fundamental irregularity occurred while the jury were sequestered that has fatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts and 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,” the appeal documents state.
“The cell tower evidence and evidence of death cap mushroom sightings in Loch and Outtrim posted to iNaturalist should not have been adduced in the applicant’s trial as the evidence was not (i) relevant or (ii) the probative value of that evidence was outweighed by its unfair prejudice and the admission of that evidence occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice.
“The learned trial judge erred in ruling that photos and videos related to mushrooms and found on an SD card at the applicant’s home was inadmissible during the prosecution case such that a substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred.”
The other four grounds of appeal relate to Patterson’s cross-examination by prosecutors over five days, along with issues over other evidence, and the opening and closing addresses of the prosecution.
This included the “Facebook evidence”, which Patterson argues includes the evidence from “friends” and messages, and should not have been adduced in the applicant’s trial.
“A substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred because of unfair and oppressive cross-examination of the applicant,” court documents allege.
“The prosecutor’s closing address caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
“A substantial miscarriage of justice occurred because despite opening the case for the prosecution on the basis that there was no evidence of motive the prosecution in its closing address changed its case by implying that there was, in fact, a motive for murder.”
The cross-examination and opening and closing addresses were completed by Nanette Rogers SC for the prosecution. Patterson’s legal team now includes barristers Richard Edney and Veronika Drago.
Separately, the Victorian director of public prosecutions is appealing Patterson’s sentence, arguing that a judge erred in finding she was likely to spend “years to come” in solitary confinement when allowing for the possibility of parole.
