R v Patterson (Ruling 2) - [2025] VSC 103

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2024 0100

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 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 103 (First Revision 19 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility of cell tower evidence — Whether the accused attended Loch on 28 April 2023 and Loch and Outtrim on 22 May 2023 — Where there is evidence that the accused accessed iNaturalist website in 2022, including a map of locations of death cap mushrooms — Where information was posted on iNaturalist website in April and May 2023 that death cap mushrooms were sighted in Loch and Outtrim, being towns which were not far from where the accused was living at the time in Leongatha — Whether cell tower evidence supports inference that the accused attended Loch and/or Outtrim on days alleged to source death cap mushrooms to use in the Beef Wellingtons which she served to her lunch guests on 29 July 2023 — Evidence of Opportunity — Evidence admissible — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 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

BACKGROUND

Summary of Prosecution Opening

Expert Evidence

SUBMISSIONS

Accused

Prosecution

ANALYSIS

HIS HONOUR:

BACKGROUND

The accused is charged with four counts of attempted murder (Charges 1–4) and three counts of murder (Charges 5–7).
The prosecution alleges that the accused deliberately poisoned her estranged husband Simon Patterson with meals containing an unknown poison or poisons prepared and provided by the accused on 16 November 2021 (Event 1), 25 May 2022 (Event 2) and 6 September 2022 (Event 3): (Charges 1–3).
The prosecution also alleges that the accused deliberately poisoned Simon Patterson’s parents, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson, and Simon Patterson’s uncle and aunt, Ian Wilkinson and Heather Wilkinson, when they attended a lunch at her home in Leongatha on 29 July 2023 to which Simon Patterson had also been invited but failed to attend (Event 4). It is not in dispute that, at that lunch, the accused served her lunch guests individually cooked Beef Wellingtons which contained death cap mushrooms. Soon after, the lunch guests fell gravely ill, were hospitalised and diagnosed with death cap mushroom poisoning. The accused, who also ate an individually cooked Beef Wellington, was also hospitalised, although her symptoms were comparatively mild: she was not diagnosed with death cap mushroom poisoning. Of the lunch guests, only Ian Wilkinson survived (Charge 4). Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson and Don Patterson died several days later in hospital (Charges 5–7).
This is a ruling regarding the admissibility of cell tower evidence which the prosecution relies on to prove that the accused probably sourced wild death cap mushrooms in Loch and/or Outtrim…

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 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 2) [2025] VSC 103
Case: [2025] VSC 103
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The ruling in R v Patterson was determined by the Victorian Supreme Court, focusing on the admissibility of cell tower evidence to establish the accused's presence in two locations. The dispute involved whether the accused had visited Loch on 28 April 2023 and Outtrim on 22 May 2023, where death cap mushrooms were sighted. The evidence included the accused's access to the iNaturalist website in 2022 and the subsequent posting of mushroom sightings in April and May 2023 near the towns of Loch and Outtrim, which were close to where the accused resided in Leongatha. The prosecution argued that cell tower data corroborated the inference that the accused had visited these towns on the dates in question, in order to source the mushrooms for the Beef Wellingtons served on 29 July 2023.

The court examined the legal issues surrounding the admissibility of cell tower evidence under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), specifically sections 55, 56, and 137. The primary concern was whether the evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have. The court considered the context of the iNaturalist website activity and the geographical proximity of the accused's residence to the locations in question. It also deliberated on whether the cell tower evidence provided a reasonable inference of the accused's presence in Loch and Outtrim on the specific dates.

The court concluded that the cell tower evidence was admissible as it was relevant and had a probative value in establishing the accused's opportunity to source the death cap mushrooms. The court found that the evidence was not overly prejudicial and was capable of supporting an inference about the accused's presence in Loch and Outtrim on the dates in question. This inference was crucial to the prosecution's case, linking the accused's actions to the events that led to the poisoning of her lunch guests.

The final orders of the court allowed the admission of the cell tower evidence, affirming its relevance and admissibility under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). This ruling was pivotal as it enabled the prosecution to proceed with their case by establishing a connection between the accused's actions and the events leading to the poisoning incident.

Orders