Mushroom Appeal | “Shocking criminality”

Erin Patterson has lost her appeal against convictions for murdering three people and attempting to murder a fourth with a poisoned Beef Wellington lunch at her Leongatha home in July 2023. The three Appeal Court judges also found, "this offending was extraordinarily cold and calculated and stands to be denounced in the strongest terms," and removed the 33-year non-parole period, which means Patterson will likely spend the rest of her life in prison. Rachael Brown and Kristian Silva join Stocky and discuss the result and reasons given. If you have any questions you'd like Kristian, Rachael and Stocky to answer in future episodes, please email [email protected]. The Case Of is the follow-up to the hit podcast Mushroom Case Daily, and all episodes of that show will remain available in the back catalogue of The Case Of.

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  In the green hills beyond Byron Bay in New South Wales.

• 0:04Speaker 01

  The most beautiful things are happening.

• 0:06Speaker 00

  A man promises a new kind of medicine.

• 0:08Speaker 02

  He touched me and he said, you are full of poison.

• 0:13Speaker 00

  His followers aren't who you'd expect.

• 0:15Speaker 01

  You're in a frigging cult, you know that, right?

• 0:16Speaker 00

  Now insiders reveal why every attempt to bring Search Ben Hayne down has failed.

• 0:21Speaker 03

  You would defend it and you would die for it.

• 0:23Speaker 00

  Search Background Briefing podcast on ABC Listen or wherever you get your podcasts. ABC Listen, podcasts, radio, news, music and more.

• 0:46Stephen Stockwell?

  The Court of Appeal has condemned Erin Patterson to die in prison, describing her decision to kill with death cap mushrooms, one of shocking criminality. I'm Stephen Stockwell, this is a special appeal episode of Mushroom Case Daily.

• 1:01Speaker 05

  Just a week after four people sat down for a family lunch in rural Victoria, three of them were dead.

• 1:08Stephen Stockwell?

  Homicide detectives are still piecing together what exactly happened at the lunch.

• 1:12Speaker 03

  It's certainly looking like, you know, the symptoms are consistent with death cap mushrooms.

• 1:17Speaker 06

  Erin Patterson said she bought the dried mushrooms at a supermarket and an Asian grocery store months earlier.

• 1:23Speaker 03

  I cannot think of another investigation that has generated this level of media and public interest.

• 1:31Stephen Stockwell?

  In the grandest courtroom in Victoria, Erin Patterson's hopes of freedom have been dashed. Her appeal against her conviction not only knocked back, but her sentence made even harsher. In this episode, we'll explain what that means, we'll talk about what the appeal judges said about Patterson's murderous intent and discuss what avenues remain for her from here. Joining me to unpack this decision is the original Mushroom Case Daily team, ABC Court reporter, Christian Silver.

• 1:59Speaker 06

  Thanks for having me.

• 2:00Stephen Stockwell?

  And we have investigative reporter, Rachel Brown.

• 2:02Speaker 06

  And Ben's back together, hi guys.

• 2:04Stephen Stockwell?

  It is wonderful to have both of you here with us. There's so much to talk about from this, we got a lot more in this appeal ruling than I was really expecting about the kind of intentions and actions of Erin Patterson. But it was a big moment that we will unpack in more detail. But first, what were your initial reactions to the decisions we got today?

• 2:21Speaker 06

  It all happened so quickly, Stocky, like it was all over in a matter of minutes. And in that, I don't know how long it was, maybe it was 10 minutes, we learned that Patterson's appeal was thrown out entirely. But then the big kicker was actually what came next with the prosecution's appeal and the Court of Appeal deciding to set aside Justice Beale's ruling of giving Patterson a parole period. And that meant no parole for Erin Patterson, she's going to die in jail.

• 2:53Stephen Stockwell?

  What about you, Rach?

• 2:54Speaker 06

  Yeah, really weighty words that we'll get into in this episode from Justices McLeish, Taylor and Kidd about the value that we as a society should place on human life.

• 3:04Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, there were some, as you say, Rach, really strong, powerful words that were handed down in the Victorian Supreme Court today. Technically the Court of Appeal delivering this decision, but we're in the biggest courtroom that the Victorian Supreme Court has. There was a decent crowd of people there, not as many as I think were around for the actual appeal arguments themselves, but still, you know, a line of people gathering outside. And, you know, it all came around pretty quickly. We had our three judges walk into the bench and we got our answer to the appeal question really quickly, Christian, right? Like they knocked this back within minutes.

• 3:36Speaker 06

  The judges gave a pretty quick summary of all of the appeal grounds and their assessments of them. And as we said, Patterson failed on every level. There was the argument about the way the jury was sequestered. Ultimately that fell over, along with other technical legal claims which did fail.

• 3:54Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. Erin Patterson wasn't in the room for this. She appeared on a big screen on the wall just above the media box where the media sit in Court One, blue prison jumper, and she looked tiny on this screen. It was this zoomed out view, I think she was in like the bottom eighth of the screen and the middle eighth of that screen, like this tiny little speck in the middle. Did you notice any reaction from her, Christian, as this was handed down?

• 4:18Speaker 06

  There wasn't much. I think she sort of slightly reclined a little bit in her seat and sat back. And whether she was in shock or was just sort of disassociating as all of this horrible news for her was being read out, I'm not too sure. Unfortunately, the camera wasn't zoomed in enough for us to get a really clear view of the facial expressions. But by and large, you know, there wasn't anything too obvious, it was kind of dead pan.

• 4:45Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. We also had like a few members of the Patterson family there, no Ian Wilkinson in court today, but I noticed three family members there. Any reaction you noticed from them?

• 4:55Speaker 06

  I noticed after the hearing definitely some of the homicide squad, the police officers were very happy. I didn't see those Patterson family members, their initial reaction, but it is unusual to see even the police, yeah, smiling, almost celebrating, I would say, after that was handed down. Usually emotions are kept in check, but this is obviously such a momentous case. And even outside court, the Director of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Cassane, and his offside Jeremy McWilliams were beaming as they walked down the street. The, some of the reporters were trying to ask questions of the police and Stephen Eppenstall, the main detective on the case, said he didn't want to answer any questions.

• 5:39Speaker 06

  And then one of the reporters probed him a bit more and said, surely you've got some reaction to what happened today? And he said, yeah, we're doing all right. And headed off down the street. And small reaction, but I think it said a lot.

• 5:56Stephen Stockwell?

  Probably a sense of relief as well, right Rach?

• 5:58Speaker 06

  Sheer relief is what I saw on the detective's faces, that's the only word I can use. And you can imagine they're thinking, thank God, we don't have to go through this again. Go through a whole, you know, retrial. And also I think that's why Ian Wilkinson mightn't have come today, because can you imagine the alternative for him having to sit through that again?

• 6:19Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, I couldn't imagine, he would be potentially giving evidence again if there was another trial, all of that. So, yeah, would have been a big moment. I want to talk a little bit about what's happened here as well, unpacking the appeal grounds and why they weren't rejected, why they weren't accepted, basically. All the grounds rejected. Christian, the first one that was addressed by the appeal judges was that the jurors were kind of potentially spooked or swayed at some point by staying in the same hotel as prosecution and police during sequestration. Why was this thrown out?

• 6:48Speaker 06

  This was probably the most interesting ground, Stocky, because it was an unusual one that we don't normally see. So the way the jury was sequestered, unfortunately, they were put in the same hotel as some of the police and some of the prosecutors. Bearing in mind, the trial happened in regional Victoria, accommodation options are a little bit limited. So the defence was basically getting at the possibility that maybe the prosecution or the police had some kind of improper run in with the jury, perhaps they swayed them in some kind of way, perhaps they saw the police officer out the window in the morning

• 7:28Speaker 06

  and it subconsciously affected the way that they decided their verdicts.

• 7:36Speaker 06

  We learned at the appeal that the defence actually had no evidence that this happened, it was just a possibility. So the Court of Appeal addressed this issue, they said, yes, it was highly undesirable that the jury was in such close proximity to people in the trial, definitely not good. But they said they don't accept that merely seeing somebody in connection with the case constitutes some sort of communication. And most importantly, they said that it's just grounds for speculation, there's no basis to think that the jury didn't discharge its obligation to consider all the evidence and then find Erin Patterson guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

• 8:19Speaker 06

  Because as you pointed out before, it happened every day, like every day at lunchtime, we'd find ourselves possibly sitting beside a juror, so we'd have to stop talking about anything to do with court, tiny town. And they did have these things called jury keepers. And that's their job, right? To report back if anything happens and they didn't, so. Yeah, it's funny, isn't it, with all of these cases, it's always about the evidence. And the defence loves to make a point about how prosecution teams have not got the evidence to back up a claim. Well, the shoe was on the other foot with this one, the defence had no evidence. And ultimately that is what sunk this ground.

• 9:01Stephen Stockwell?

  The other kind of key appeal round that these judges spent a little bit of time on was the evidence of the mobile phone data. This is mobile phone data that placed Erin Patterson at locations where death cap mushrooms had been sighted. There was the suggestion in the appeal that was submitted that this evidence was inadmissible, shouldn't have been presented to the jury in the way that it was. Court of Appeal found that it was admissible and they explained pretty simply why they thought this was relevant. Why was that, Rach?

• 9:28Speaker 06

  It was in the context of the other information that the juries had in that the dates of the iNaturalist posts, and the judges made the comment that the purchase of the dehydrator was the same day as one of those posts and then death cap mushrooms were found in that dehydrator. And so all that evidence has to be considered together and in context. And they made a further point that, you know, Dr Sorrell in his evidence. Explained the limits of his evidence and the jury understood that. And what that evidence was from Sorrell was not precisely pinpointing where Patterson was at a certain time when death cap mushrooms were growing nearby, but it was strengthening the prosecution case that there was a good chance

• 10:12Speaker 06

  that she was around. And during the trial, he was able to use these phone data to pinpoint the approximate locations of her phone, which were near these death cap mushroom growth sites.

• 10:25Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, and I mean, this was articulated by the, um, the judges in this appeal as it was handed down, the relevance of this evidence presented by Dr. Matthew Sorrell, who's a telecommunications expert. He's the guy who interprets this data, who will explain to a jury what this means and how it is, how it can be used. Um, something I noticed in the judgment was that he was kind of pretty clear on, the, the judges thought he was pretty clear on the limitations of that as well. So, um, and yeah, right, as you say, the way that that was presented. Um, with the, you know, phone placing her in this location on this day where death cap mushrooms are mid-sided, and then on that same day, buying a dehydrator, and then in that dehydrator, they are finding traces of death cap mushrooms. The way that the judges explained that

• 11:06Stephen Stockwell?

  in their, uh, reasons today, I, I really appreciated, you know, sometimes we don't necessarily get such clear explanations in court. So that was, uh, quite a nice one. Um, and, and look, there were seven appeal grounds in total. We've covered two. There's five more, um, that were up as well. This is evidence around an S D card that the defence said shouldn't be included on the way that Erin Patterson was questioned, the way that motive was used. I mean, none of these other ones really seemed like the, uh, appeal court gave much time to.

• 11:31Speaker 06

  Yeah, that's correct. Um, probably one that people remember was the defence was very critical of Nanette Rogers, the prosecutor, for the very lengthy cross-examination that took place over several days. Um, the Court of Appeal found that, uh, the prosecutor actually was fairly discharging her obligations. And there is a legal rule that, um, if someone is in the witness box, especially if they're the accused, if you're the prosecution and you're making allegations about them, you have to put it directly to them.

• 12:00Stephen Stockwell?

  Hmm. Yep. Rach, was there anything from any of the other reasons that stood out to you?

• 12:05Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, the, I wasn't surprised that the appeal was dismissed, but I was really interested in digging into the reasons. Um, the other, one of the grounds, ground seven, was that the prosecution didn't allege at the beginning of the trial, there was a motive and then it implied it in its closing. Um, but that ground was heavily based on ground four, which was the Facebook evidence, and ground four was knocked out. Um, the judges said, well, that was fine in introducing that evidence, the, the messages that she had with her friends. Um, so if that was fine, then you can't argue ground seven, um, which is implying a motive. The other thing I was really interested in that, that Christian just touched on, um, that Nanette Rogers'

• 12:50Speaker 06

  cross-examination was unfair and oppressive. It was onerous, like we were there for that. Um, but as Christian pointed out, it needed to be. And at a number of points in this judgment today, the three judges make the point that uh, the, the defence didn't ask for a mistrial at any point in time. And the judges say that a forensic decision was taken not to, that this was a calculated approach aimed at capitalising upon any perceived overreach by the prosecutor. So I think that's really interesting that they picked up on that because it reminds me of another case. And then this, um, infamous quote by John Sylvester now, that, you know, of, of a defence team that doesn't ask for a mistrial at the time, but then uses it for an appeal later.

• 13:35Speaker 06

  And his quote was, you know, um, an AFL analogy that you can't like get a free kick, play on, hit the post and then ask for another shot.

• 13:47Speaker 06

  And that, that wasn't in regards to this trial, I should point out, but it's, it's, it reminded me of the same thing. And so I think the judges are like, you had your chance and you didn't take it, so. Wonder what Colin Mandy's making of, of it all.

• 14:00Stephen Stockwell?

  Be very interested to, uh, speak to Colin about, uh, how he's, um, how he's interpreted all this and yeah, in a way, kind of being thrown under the bus, right? You know, oh, we didn't do it at the time, but we are, here we are now and maybe he does understand the, the tactical benefit of being able to be thrown under the bus to, uh, uh, have a, have a run at an appeal. Uh, Christian, the only appeal ground that we haven't touched on now, I've done them a little bit out of order, but this is the, um, the S D card. What was going on there?

• 14:24Speaker 06

  Well, this is probably the most convoluted appeal ground, but it actually does lead to something interesting. Uh, it was these photos, um, old photos of mushrooms that Patterson had on an S D card, um, years before the mushroom lunch. And, um, just, Justice Christopher Beale, um, said the prosecution could not introduce this evidence. Um, and the defence argued that that was a mistake, um, because it then forced them to introduce the evidence and it led to this sort of long-winded explanation that it kind of pressured Erin Patterson to get into the witness box and explain certain things. Um, probably oversimplifying it a bit, but, but that is the thrust of it.

• 15:09Speaker 06

  Um, that ground was thrown out today. The Court of Appeal judges said that, um, Erin Patterson would have needed to have gotten into the witness box to explain several parts of her story. Uh, as people who follow this pod know, um, it's not just about what happened at the lunch. It's all of these events before and afterwards, and all of these things that couldn't be corroborated by any other witnesses. Sometimes even her own children couldn't back up some of the things she was saying. So if there's no other witnesses, it meant that she had to get in the box and explain certain things.

• 15:42Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. Uh, that's all the, uh, the seven appeal grounds that were brought against the, uh, appeal of, uh, Erin Patterson. And, and this is how Judge Stephen McLeish kind of read these out in the courtroom.

• 15:52Speaker 06

  In summary, the Court has the opinion that leave to appeal against conviction should be granted in respect of grounds one and two only, but that the appeal should be dismissed.

• 16:01Stephen Stockwell?

  Judge Stephen McLeish reading out the, uh, basically the decision on the, um, conviction appeal, what they think kind of gets up there and what doesn't. Uh, the way that they spoke about this, you know, we, it seemed to me as though the kind of first two grounds we've talked about, so, um, that is the jury sequestration and the, um, issue around the mobile phone, uh, tower evidence were taken kind of seriously. The other five kind of didn't really give much time to, is that right?

• 16:28Speaker 06

  Yeah, in technical legal terms, leave to appeal on grounds one and two, so the sequestration and the mobile phone data, leave to appeal was granted for those grounds, as in we, the three Court of Appeal judges are going to give this some consideration. Um, but the appeal was dismissed. So they didn't buy the defence's arguments on them. And with the other five grounds, leave to appeal was not granted. So there's still a lot of detail about why they didn't grant it, but, um, I don't think they thought it was potentially as dangerous as the other ones. It's almost, uh, kind of a lawyeristic way of saying, we dismissed it, but we, we took it seriously versus, yeah, that was really hopeless.

• 17:12Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep.

• 17:12Speaker 06

  Yeah, but no.

• 17:14Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, but no. Um, as well as the, um, prosecution, um, sorry, as well as the conviction appeal from Erin Patterson and her lawyers, we've also had the, uh, the prosecution appeal as well. And this is where I found it got really interesting. This is them appealing against the sentence that was handed down to Erin Patterson. And the Court of Appeal judges have basically decided that the sentence that was handed to Erin Patterson wasn't appropriate. Why?

• 17:38Speaker 06

  Well, basically because Patterson's crimes were so bad. And, and Justice Beale did give her a very harsh sentence. He sentenced her to life in prison. But he gave her that glimmer of hope with the non-parole period, meaning that she could have walked free maybe in the year twenty fifty six, when she would have been in her eighties. Um, she's fifty two now. But, uh, the Court of Appeal judges said that these crimes were, were so bad. Um, some of the words used cold, calculated, um, and said that it had to be denounced in the strongest terms. They said it was a case of shocking criminality, um, that it was inappropriate to have a non-parole period at all. And, and so the effect of that is she never gets out of jail.

• 18:24Speaker 06

  Um, it puts her In a very select group of killers who have got this sentence.

• 18:32Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, I want to talk about who this kind of puts basically in league with now, the comparable kind of Australian murderers, basically. It was when I started thinking about this earlier, I heard you and Rach talking about this when we were in court and I was surprised, we'll come to that in a moment. But Rach, the thing I found interesting about the way that the appeal judges talked about Patterson's intent was the way that they kind of explained the sort of timeline around it.

• 18:54Speaker 06

  Yeah, I mean, that was something that Justice Beal commented on too in his sentencing. But the three judges today made a point of talking about how long Erin's murderous intent was sustained for, nearly three weeks from the time of the invitation through the food prep, serving the poisonous meal, watching as they suffered and watching through their ultimate deaths. And they also made a comment on an elaborate series of deceptions, the false cancer claims, the false denials of having foraged mushrooms, the lies about where she sourced the mushrooms, and of course, the destruction of the evidence. So they said the offending was carefully planned and deliberate. It represented a cruel breach of trust to members of the applicant's extended family.

• 19:39Stephen Stockwell?

  Were you surprised they went that hard?

• 19:41Speaker 06

  I am. I'm used to very, like, legalese, which it was, and it's a huge report. I haven't finished reading it all yet. Very heavy, you know, technical legal arguments. But I'm also happy that they made these very sentimental and human comments in here. We've talked a lot in the pod about how a courtroom is no place for really human emotion and suffering. So it is nice to see the thoughts of these judges reflected in this judgment.

• 20:16Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the way that they talked about the kind of planning around this was pretty interesting. And the way they framed this of like, you know, you invited these people to the lunch on this day, you maintained this murderous intent for three weeks. You had information that could have saved the lives of the people who died at lunch, Gail and Don Patterson, Heather Wilkinson. You know, they suffered in hospital for almost a week following this lunch. And Erin Patterson, had she told people treating them that, you know, she had fed them death cap mushrooms, there were things that could have been done that may have saved their lives. And the judges today highlighted that fact. They said you had information, you did not hand over that information and really kind of laid that out in front of them. But Christian, I mean, they highlighted the sort of the

• 20:58Stephen Stockwell?

  planning around that time, the sort of three weeks or so beforehand. But, you know, this we know from the evidence presented during the trial and, you know, other things presented in pre-trial as well, that there was some pretty significant planning done even before inviting the guests, just from documents found on Erin Patterson's computer.

• 21:13Speaker 06

  Whether it was planning or whether it was prior knowledge, I mean, Erin Patterson clearly has an interest in true crime that's come out through a lot of the pre-trial evidence and through the Facebook friends who testified in court and extensively read about things like poisons. There were articles that she had on her computer about death cap mushrooms. There was an appendix of a book, this was found on her computer. The title was something like some common homicidal poisons. She had journal articles about other types of poisoning,

• 21:55Speaker 06

  red kidney beans. And there was another article about a plant toxin, something connected to ricin as well. So, you know, one could say that she was pretty well read on these types of things. Whether that factored into what happened in July 2023 and the mushroom meal, I guess only Erin Patterson knows.

• 22:16Stephen Stockwell?

  One of the things I've been thinking about today, you know, we have Erin Patterson, who has made this decision to appeal against her conviction. That appeal has not only been thrown out, but she finishes the day with a harsher sentence than she began. Has this decision backfired on her?

• 22:34Speaker 06

  I mean, you could look at it that way, but when you drill down to the actual mechanics of what happened with the appeal process, it's not quite that. And I'll explain why. So Patterson was appealing the conviction, the prosecution was appealing the sentence. They're two separate issues. Erin Patterson has always maintained her innocence. So, you know, it's not a surprise there. And the prosecution, since the guilty verdict came in, has always pushed for a life sentence with no parole. So it's probably not quite right to say it backfired. But I was thinking about this, at the start of the day, there were a real range of options on the table, some of them not realistic. But one possible

• 23:18Speaker 06

  option would have been that the Court of Appeal acquitted Erin Patterson entirely and set her free. That was one potential option, obviously, that was unrealistic, all the way through to what has ended up happening, a life sentence with no parole. So quite a range. The whole spectrum.

• 23:33Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah. Erin Patterson now spends her life in prison. What kind of category of murderer does this put her in line with in Australia?

• 23:42Speaker 06

  She's up there with the worst of the worst because there are really horrible crimes where people get a life sentence. And actually, in Queensland, every murderer gets a life sentence. But nearly all of them get a parole period. And the reason for that is courts are not supposed to hand down what are called crushing sentences. They're supposed to provide some glimmer of hope to the person, even if they are convicted of such a serious crime. And when they take that away, that is only reserved for the worst of the worst. So the types of people who are serving the same sentence, life without parole, we've got the likes of Peter Dupass, a serial killer from Melbourne, Martin Bryant, the man who

• 24:27Speaker 06

  carried out the Port Arthur massacre. And the other woman who fits into this category is a woman called Catherine Knight, who committed a very gruesome murder in New South Wales about 25 years ago, the sort of stuff that is too shocking to even describe. Dupass, you mentioned, killed three. Martin Bryant killed 35. We were talking about Snow Town before.

• 24:54Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, Bunty and Wagner killed 12 people as part of that. You know, one of the people who was associated with that, James Losakis, actually recently has had parole. But Bunty and Wagner, the two men who were kind of at the centre of that, yeah, they have no opportunity for parole. There's, yeah, kind of the company of this, just to give you an understanding of the, you know, the intent of Erin Patterson, I think, when we're considering this, when you're thinking about the crimes that she has committed and the impact that she has left on so many people's lives, the Patterson and Wilkinson families. Something I think about a lot is that, you know, we heard about these large gatherings the family would have, the groups of people that they would bring together and all of that. And I think, yeah, that's something that, you know, resonates with me and I will be thinking about a lot throughout this. I mean.

• 25:36Speaker 06

  I think as well, there has been this sort of strange way that the Erin Patterson case has been viewed by the public. And we've talked about this at length, how for some reason, it has been entertainment for a lot of people. There's something about it that has triggered that emotion. And then when you see the judges of the court put her in that category of these types of people, it puts it truly into perspective. Nothing about this is or was ever funny. And Justice Beal, I think, set a non-parole period of 33 years, more so because of her conditions. He thought that were onerous in solitary for 22, 23 hours a day because

• 26:17Speaker 06

  of her notoriety. And he didn't see if that would ever end. Clearly, the justices of the Court of Appeal have decided, you know, well, that it might not be that onerous forever. And also, we need to consider what they say is the primary value that our society places on each individual human life. And they said the murders constituted an abhorrent violation of that most fundamental value. Yeah. And can you imagine as well, going forward, if Patterson murdered three people and attempted to murder another one, and still gets this parole period? Well, if there's killers in the future that kill three or less people and they get a life sentence with

• 27:00Speaker 06

  no parole, they'll point to Patterson and say, well, she got a chance. So I think it was an important decision in terms of case law going forward. It's not, you know, strictly a precedent that others have to follow, but we do know that when it comes to sentencing, lawyers look at comparable cases. So I think this one, in the future, if there is another horrible mass killing, there'll be some reference to it.

• 27:25Stephen Stockwell?

  And Christian, when we're talking about life in prison, is that like a number? You know, life, a life sentence is 80 years or is life sentence life?

• 27:35Speaker 06

  The expectation is life is life. You would expect that Erin Patterson will die in prison. And I think about some other, you know, other criminals who are serving very, very long sentences, and some have actually died in prison, you know, well into their 80s. So I think it's very likely now for Erin Patterson.

• 27:59Stephen Stockwell?

  Yep. Do you think Erin Patterson will accept this?

• 28:02Speaker 06

  No, I don't think so. I don't think she's ever accepted any of it. And we saw that from when she was interviewed by the police, days after the lunch guests fell sick, all the way through to her time in the witness box, the fact that she's gone to appeal. There's no sign of acceptance. I guess the question is whether she'll have one more crack and appeal again.

• 28:25Stephen Stockwell?

  What is her option from here? High Court?

• 28:27Speaker 06

  It's very limited. Yep, it's in the High Court. The High Court requires all the state court options to be exhausted, which they now are. And she will have to apply for special leave to be granted to the High Court. If that is approved, then she will get an appeal hearing. Of course, she may fail. But even to get in front of the High Court is not easy.

• 28:53Stephen Stockwell?

  And Rach, do you think Erin Patterson, you know, will try and take this to the High Court?

• 28:57Speaker 06

  She might. I mean, it depends how much funds she has left, I suppose. I understand it's quite expensive. Easy thing to take something to the High Court, but she does have 28 days to decide if she'll do that. So that will take us up to November 27.

• 29:10Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah, okay. Speaking of costs, something I remember from last year, we had a story published about how Erin Patterson was barred from selling her home, basically to protect that for any claims of compensation or restitution from the victims of this. Is that something that's on the table for the Patterson and Wilkinson families?

• 29:28Speaker 06

  It might be. It's not something that generally you hear a great deal about in the public. That particular hearing was actually in closed court. So I'm not sure whether the Pattersons or Wilkinson's have taken up the opportunity, or whether that that money has even been made available to them, given we were just in an appeal up until today. So yeah, not too sure.

• 29:50Stephen Stockwell?

  Okay. We'll keep you updated on the case of. Another special edition of Mushroom Case Daily may be coming if we learn more about some of that. I mean, does this decision make it easier for the families, for the people who've been affected by Erin Patterson's crimes?

• 30:05Speaker 06

  Look, I think it makes it easier in terms of the relief of not having to sit through another trial. But I don't believe in closure. So I don't think it'll make it easier in that regard. Poor Ian, I think about him a lot, actually, and he's lost his best friend. He speaks about living a half life now and having to navigate that without Heather. I think about Erin's kids a lot and the world that they have to navigate now. So no, I don't, I don't think it'll make for a happier life for any of them. I think it just underscores how much misery she has brought on, not only to her immediate family, but also it's a generational thing now. And those kids will have to live

• 30:46Speaker 06

  with that forever. I mean, she's 52 now. If she lives for a few more decades, she might be forgotten by the rest of us, but her kids and the family will still have to live with the fact that Erin is lingering in prison.

• 31:03Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah. I mentioned briefly how Erin Patterson looked on the screen today. She looked tiny. She looked really small at the bottom of the screen in the little blue jumper. It was a really zoomed out vision of her. It was not flattering at all. And through the window, you could see the reflection of the prison that she's in. And while it certainly wasn't flattering, it did in a way seem a little fitting, right?

• 31:28Speaker 06

  That really spoke to me. I know I'm thinking in cinematic terms, but her as a tiny almost speck in a corner of the frame and outside, you can see a reflection of the prison yard and big blue sky, beautiful day here today in Melbourne. And that's all happening outside. Our colleague Greg said it reminded him, as it did me, of the Heidelberg School of Painting. And it just felt like that. And no more for her. That's done. You know, and she is this speck in this frame in jail.

• 32:02Stephen Stockwell?

  And that building, Christian, this place that Erin Patterson is in now, she is going to spend the rest of her life in custody. We've heard about the condition she's in. She's in basically solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, very limited time outside, time into the library, things like that. And this is just her life for the rest of it.

• 32:21Speaker 06

  Yeah, no friends really, no one to talk to. I'm not sure whether people are coming to visit her, but it will be a very lonely, isolated experience. And I noticed today, actually, just before the hearing started, she was really wistfully looking out the window. It was a big window that was next to her. And it sort of dawned on me that this is something that Patterson actually doesn't get to do in her daily life. Her cell is very cramped. She pretty much has not great access to the outside, fresh air. So for her to sit next to a big window and actually see something. Is what you can't have anymore.

• 33:02Speaker 06

  Yeah, you know, it's small pleasures in life, right? And that's now what she's reduced to.

• 33:07Stephen Stockwell?

  Yeah. Thank you both so much for joining us for this episode of Mushroom Case Daily. There, we're not quite finished yet. You know, we'll keep up to date with the appeal, but there is another piece of information that may spark another Mushroom Case Daily episode if this doesn't end up going to the High Court. So we will be back in your feed with Mushroom Case Daily if that pops up and we can talk about that. But until then, thank you both so much for joining us.

• 33:31Speaker 06

  It's a pleasure. Stocky, we did our first episode of this podcast in April 2024. So now to, we didn't quite get the first court date, but this could be the end of the case. And I hope people have found it to be an interesting insight into the legal process. We've seen it from the magistrate's court to the Supreme Court, to the Court of Appeal. That was part of the great idea behind this, that people were feeling alienated and ostracised by the system. And this gave them a rare window into that and the decisions and how they get made and opportunity to ask questions and all the emails. I think for this case alone, we had 8,300 emails or something like that.

• 34:13Stephen Stockwell?

  Over 8,000 emails on the trial of Erin Patterson was sent through to us during Mushroom Case Daily.

• 34:18Speaker 06

  So it's pretty remarkable. And also, I think both of us have felt, audience engagement, you don't get that with every story that you do. In fact, it's quite rare. So to have the contact that we've had with our audience has been phenomenal. So thank you.

• 34:32Stephen Stockwell?

  I think it speaks to the skills of both of you as court reporters to take us inside these courtrooms throughout these proceedings. And yeah, Christian, a great idea to use this as a way to take people into the courtroom and explain the justice system. And hopefully we've been able to do that for you over the last two years plus with Mushroom Case Daily and now the case of. Really appreciate you joining us for this whole time. There's been so much that we have learnt along the way. If you want to go back and listen to all the episodes of Mushroom Case Daily and relive some of those moments, you can find them all in the case of feed on ABC Listen. So get around that. You can also watch episodes of the case of there as well. So you can catch up on all of that. So there's much more we will discuss. There's maybe some other thoughts that we'll have in some special episodes that

• 35:14Stephen Stockwell?

  we'll drop in your feeds a little bit later this year, maybe after the live show. So we'll see what comes around then. But yeah, we'll, we'll be back in your feed very soon.

• 35:27Stephen Stockwell?

  Mushroom Case Daily is produced by ABC Audio Studios and ABC News. This episode was reported by Christian Silver and Rachel Brown and presented by me, Stephen Stockwell. Our supervising producer is Greg Muller and our executive producer is Claire Rawlinson. Thank you to Alicia Bridges for her help with this episode. Thank you to senior lawyer Jasmine Sims, our legal queen, to the Victorian newsroom, and also to audio studios manager, Eric George. This episode was produced on the land of the Wurundjeri people.