Erin Patterson faces legal reckoning as Victoria's highest court hands down its decision on the deadly mushroom poisoning case that captivated and shocked the public.
Three Court of Appeal judges will deliver their rulings on two competing legal challenges at 10am on Friday morning.
The 52-year-old Leongatha woman is fighting to overturn her jury convictions for the triple murder of her former in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, as well as the attempted murder of local pastor Ian Wilkinson.
All four fell critically ill after eating beef Wellingtons laced with lethal death cap mushrooms during a family lunch at Patterson's regional home in July 2023. Only Ian survived.
Patterson is expected to watch the proceedings remotely from Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in Ravenhall in Melbourne's west, where she is serving a life sentence.
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
Victoria's director of public prosecutions is appealing Patterson's sentence, calling for her non-parole period of 33 years to be stripped to ensure she spends the rest of her life behind bars.
Patterson's legal team launched an appeal following her 2025 trial in the regional Victorian town of Morwell, arguing that multiple procedural errors resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice.
At the heart of the appeal, argued over two days in August this year, was the overlapping accommodation used during the jury's final deliberations.
Patterson's barristers revealed that sequestered jurors were lodged in the same hotel as the prosecution's lead police investigator and two Crown team members.
They argued that sharing a building created an "unacceptable risk" of jury contamination, saying even catching sight of the Crown's team through windows or hotel corridors threatened a fair trial.
Her legal team also challenged the Crown's courtroom approach, labelling the five-day cross-examination by senior prosecutor Dr Nanette Rogers as needlessly aggressive, oppressive, and unfair. They argued the hostile questioning risked leading the jury.
Finally, the defence also claimed the Crown altered its fundamental theory during closing addresses by introducing suggestions of a motive after previously telling the jury in opening remarks no motive could be established.
While Patterson is attempting to overturn her convictions, the Crown is seeking a harsher penalty.
In September last year, Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Patterson to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years — meaning she would not be eligible for release until she was in her mid-80s.
Crown prosecutor Brendan Kissane argued the sentence was wholly inadequate, given the killings involved calculated premeditation, exacerbated by her failure to tell medical staff about the death caps her victims had consumed while doctors were still trying to save them.
The Crown also challenged the decision to discount her sentence due to the difficult protective custody she had to endure. Her extreme notoriety meant Patterson needed years of strict segregation so as not to influence her trial.
However prosecutors said her conditions in maximum security — including gym access, library resources, crocheting materials, and video calls with her children — did not justify leniency, given the serious nature of her crimes.
Under Victorian law, the appellate bench first has to decide if Patterson's case meets the threshold to be granted leave to appeal before determining the final order.
The Court of Appeal has four options:
If the appellate bench upholds Patterson's appeal, the prosecution's challenge against her sentence will automatically be dismissed.
If the Court of Appeal dismisses Patterson's conviction challenge, the judges will immediately decide on the Crown's sentencing appeal.
The bench will choose between upholding Beale's original 33-year non-parole order or re-sentencing Patterson to an indefinite life term without parole.
Given the major international interest in the case, the decision is being heard in the Supreme Court's trial division building, rather than the appellate building. A public live stream will also be running.
