Prosecutors Demand Mushroom Murderer Erin Patterson 'Die Behind Bars' in Explosive Court of Appeal Hearing

During Erin Patterson's Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday, 20 August, prosecutors urged Victoria's highest court that the convicted murderer should never leave prison.

Victoria's Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane stated that Patterson should either be sentenced without any possibility of parole or receive a non-parole period so lengthy that she would likely die behind bars.

Patterson was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder last September.

She killed Don and Gail Patterson, her estranged husband's parents, and Heather Wilkinson, Gail's sister, by serving them a meal containing deadly death cap mushrooms. Heather's husband, Ian, was the attempted murder victim, who fell ill for several weeks in the hospital.

Prosecutors Seek Harsher Sentence

The 51-year-old convicted murderer is appealing both of her convictions, claiming that the 10-week trial that led to her imprisonment in September was unfair. The judges are expected to reserve their decisions and rule on the appeals at a later date.

Kissane argued that the manner in which Patterson murdered her victims justified removing the possibility of parole altogether. The prosecution has described Patterson's crime as 'truly dreadful' and argues that the existing 33-year minimum term doesn't reflect the 'pitiless' offence she committed.

The DPP then said that if life imprisonment without the possibility of parole isn't possible, Patterson's 33-year non-parole period should be extended.

Justice Lesley Taylor asked Kissane whether a longer non-parole period would damn Patterson to dying behind bars, since she could only request it after 33 years and she's 51 now. Kissane acknowledged this and said 'it has its harsh aspect to it, of course, we accept that.'

'But in our submission that is not a matter that is outweighed by the seriousness of the offending,' Kissane added.

Patterson's Lawyer Counters the DPP

Patterson's lawyer, Richard Edney KC, defended the original 33-year non-parole period. He argued that the sentencing judge, Justice Christopher Beale, had correctly balanced the seriousness of her crimes against the harsh conditions she would face in prison.

Edney further explained in court that Patterson spends up to 23 hours a day in a cell measuring about 4 metres by 2 metres, effectively placing her in solitary confinement.

Edney argued that Beale had carefully considered Patterson's eventual living conditions inside prison before deciding her sentence and had given him clear reasons behind his decision.

Patterson's legal team also raised concerns over the treatment of the jury during the trial, as the members were staying at the same hotel as the prosecution team, a key witness and journalists while deliberating their decision.

The defence argued that the situation affected the integrity of the proceedings, leading to an unfair outcome.

Prosecutors rejected the claims and argued that there was no evidence of communication between jurors and the other people staying at the hotel and that the guilty verdicts were supported by overwhelming evidence.

The Court's Decision

Patterson continues to plead that the deaths involved in the case were accidental, claiming that she didn't deliberately poison them. She appeared before the Court of Appeal remotely from prison, while Ian Wilkinson attended the hearing in person.

No decision has been made at the time of writing, but if the prosecution succeeds, Patterson could face a sentence that ultimately guarantees she spends the rest of her life behind bars.