R v Patterson (Ruling 1) - [2025] VSC 102

Not Restricted
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Redacted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0100

NOTE: These reasons for judgment have been edited to remove certain information that may be confidential to the parties

THE KING	Crown
v
ERIN PATTERSON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6-7 & 10-14 February 2025
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Patterson (Ruling 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 102 (First Revision 18 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Evidence of computer records on devices seized from home of accused concerning access to, or possible access to, information on poisons — Where evidence relied on by prosecution to show that, leading up to and during the period of the alleged offences (attempted murder x4 and murder x3), the accused had a continuous state of mind, namely, an interest in poisons generally and in death cap mushrooms in particular — Where much of the computer evidence is also relied on by the prosecution to show that the accused had a tendency to access information online about death cap mushrooms and/or poisons on the iNaturalist website — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) ss 55, 56, 76, 137.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Dr Nanette Rogers SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
Jane Warren
Sarah Lenthall
For the Accused	Colin Mandy SC	Doogue & George Lawyers
Sophie Stafford

Contents

INTRODUCTION

Summary of Expert Evidence

SPO [274] – ON 12.10.19, D “HAD ACCESS TO” A PDF TITLED “2007_BOOKMATTER_ CRIMINAL POISONING.PDF”

Background
Fox-Henry

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution
Accused

SPO [276] – ON 27.10.20, D “HAD ACCESS TO” A PDF TITLED “EPIDINFECT00024-0031.PDF” CONCERNING RED KIDNEY BEAN POISONING IN THE UK

Background
Fox Henry

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [280] – BETWEEN 10.10.21 & 15.5.22, D “POSSIBLY ACCESS[ED]” A PDF TITLED ‘MAY_2011_VICTORIAN_NATURALIST_128_183”

Background
Fox-Henry

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [281] – BETWEEN 10.10.21 & 22.5.22, D “POSSIBLY ACCESS[ED]” INFORMATION ON THE iNATURALIST WEBSITE CONCERNING AMANITA PHALLOIDES

Background
Fox-Henry

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [283]–[285] – On 28.05.22, D ACCESSED THE iNATURALIST WORLD MAP OF DCM SIGHTINGS, INCLUDING IN BRICKER RESERVE, MOORABBIN, MELBOURNE

Background
The Accused’s Objection Withdrawn

SPO [287] – BETWEEN 5.09.22 & 1.05.23, D ”POSSIBLY ACCESS[ED]” INFORMATION ON iNATURALIST REGARDING POISON HEMLOCK IN POOWONG RD, LOCH

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [289] – ON 15.11.22, D “HAD ACCESS TO” A PDF CONCERNING “ONE STEP PURIFICATION & CHARACTERISATION OF ABRIN TOXIN FROM ABRUS PRECATORIUS SEEDS”

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [290] – ON OR BEFORE 18.11.22, D “HAD ACCESS TO” AN IMAGE OF A DOCUMENT REGARDING RICIN TOXICITY

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [291] – ON OR BEFORE 18.11.22, D “HAD ACCESS TO” AN IMAGE OF AN ARTICLE TITLED “ABRUS PRECATORIUS POISONING: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY OF 112 PATIENTS”

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [292] – ON OR BEFORE 2.12.22, D “HAD ACCESS TO” AN IMAGE OF AN ARTICLE TITLED “ONE STEP PURIFICATION & CHARACTERISATION OF ABRIN TOXIN FROM ABRUS PRECATORIUS SEEDS”

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

SPO [301] – BETWEEN 10.10.21…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Patterson (Ruling 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 1) [2025] VSC 102
Case: [2025] VSC 102
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the accused, Patterson, was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder and murder. The prosecution sought to rely on computer records seized from the accused's home to establish a state of mind indicating an interest in poisons, specifically death cap mushrooms, around the time of the alleged offences. The court was tasked with determining whether this evidence was admissible under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The key legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the computer records and whether they could be used to establish a state of mind and a propensity to access information about death cap mushrooms and poisons.

The court considered the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), particularly sections 55, 56, 76, and 137. The court examined the relevance and probative value of the computer records against their potential to unfairly prejudice the accused. The court also assessed whether the records could establish a continuous state of mind and whether they were relevant to showing the accused's propensity to access information about death cap mushrooms and poisons. Ultimately, the court concluded that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant to establishing the accused's state of mind and propensity, and its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court found that the computer records were admissible under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The records were deemed relevant to demonstrating the accused's state of mind and propensity to access information about death cap mushrooms and poisons. The court ruled that the evidence could be used to establish a continuous state of mind leading up to and during the alleged offences. The court held that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice, and thus, the evidence was admissible. The case proceeded with the admission of the computer records as evidence.

The court's decision allowed the prosecution to use the computer records to support their case. The admissibility of this evidence was crucial in establishing the accused's state of mind and propensity, which were central to the prosecution's case. The final orders of the court permitted the use of the computer records in the trial, thereby setting the stage for the presentation of further evidence and arguments.

Orders