Key facts
- Erin Patterson's lawyers argue that jurors in her triple murder trial were not properly sequestered, staying in the same hotel as police and prosecution lawyers.
- This alleged failure to sequester jurors is described as a "catastrophic" breakdown of the justice system, denying Patterson a fair trial.
- Patterson is appealing her convictions for the murders of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.
- The state's director of public prosecutions is appealing Patterson's life sentence with a 33-year non-parole period, arguing it is inadequate.
- Additional grounds for appeal include the admissibility of cell tower and mushroom sighting evidence, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination and closing arguments.
Lawyers for Erin Patterson are arguing that her convictions for the triple murder of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, should be overturned due to a "catastrophic" failure in the justice system. During her trial, the jury reportedly stayed in the same hotel as the police informant and prosecution lawyers while deliberating, a process known as sequestration. Patterson's legal team contends this lack of proper separation denied her a fair trial.
During the appeal hearing, Richard Edney, representing Patterson, told the court that the failure to sequester the jury was a fundamental irregularity. He described the situation as "inexplicable" and "catastrophic," undermining the principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Edney noted an "evidentiary vacuum" surrounding the sequestration, as there was no CCTV footage from the hotel and the jury could not be questioned about potential interactions.
Justice Peter Kidd questioned the necessity of direct evidence of communication, suggesting that even non-verbal interactions could be problematic, but acknowledged there was no evidence of such occurrences. He also noted that the jury keeper was present to ensure the integrity of deliberations.
Further grounds for Patterson's appeal include the admissibility of cell tower evidence and mushroom sighting data, which her defense described as "dangerous" and "unfair." They also argued that photos and videos related to mushrooms found on an SD card in Patterson's home, which could have supported her defense of foraging, were wrongly ruled inadmissible. Additionally, Patterson's lawyers cited "unfair and oppressive" cross-examination and alleged misstatements of evidence by the prosecutor during the closing address as grounds for appeal.
Concurrently, the state's director of public prosecutions is appealing Patterson's sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years, arguing it is "manifestly inadequate." The court of appeal is hearing arguments for both the conviction and sentence appeals.