R v Patterson (Ruling 3) - [2025] VSC 104

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 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 104 (First revision 19 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Tendency evidence — Whether accused had a tendency to act in a particular way, namely, to access websites (including iNaturalist) regarding poisons, including death cap mushrooms — Where sightings of death cap mushrooms in Loch and Outtrim posted on iNaturalist on 18 April 2023 and 21 May 2023 — Where no records on electronic devices seized from the accused of her accessing that particular information on iNaturalist — Where tendency evidence relied on for inference that the accused accessed that particular information on iNaturalist — Where cell tower evidence of the accused possibly visiting Loch and Outtrim in days following iNaturalist postings — Tendency evidence inadmissible — Hughes v R (2017) 263 CLR 338 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 97, 98.

---

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

Amended Tendency Notice

Summary of Prosecution Opening

Legal Framework

SUBMISSIONS

Prosecution

Accused

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 declined at the last minute (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. Each of 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, though 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 tendency evidence relied on by the prosecution in relation to Event 4 (Charges 4–7).

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 3) [2025] VSC 104
Case: [2025] VSC 104
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this judicial proceeding, the respondent, Patterson, faced charges brought by the Crown. The crux of the dispute centred around the admissibility of tendency evidence, specifically whether the respondent had a propensity to access information about poisons, including death cap mushrooms, via websites such as iNaturalist. The matter was adjudicated by the court, which had to determine whether the evidence of the respondent's alleged tendency to seek out and access such information was admissible under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).

The primary legal issue that the court needed to resolve was whether the tendency evidence was admissible for the purpose of inferring that the respondent had accessed the information about death cap mushrooms on iNaturalist. This required consideration of established legal principles concerning the admissibility of such evidence, as well as relevant statutory provisions. The court had to balance the relevance of the evidence against the potential for unfair prejudice to the respondent, as outlined in Hughes v R and the statutory provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), sections 97 and 98.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and the legal framework governing the admissibility of tendency evidence. It concluded that the tendency evidence was not admissible as it did not meet the criteria set forth in Hughes v R and the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court found that the absence of any records on the respondent's electronic devices indicating access to the specific information on iNaturalist, coupled with the lack of direct evidence linking the respondent to the information, rendered the tendency evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the court ruled that the Crown's reliance on tendency evidence to establish the respondent's access to the information was unsuccessful.

The court's ruling on the admissibility of the tendency evidence directly impacted the Crown's case. As a result of this ruling, the Crown was precluded from using the tendency evidence to infer that the respondent accessed the information about death cap mushrooms on iNaturalist. This decision underscored the importance of direct evidence and the stringent criteria that must be met for tendency evidence to be admissible in court proceedings.

Orders