R v Patterson (Ruling 4) - [2025] VSC 105

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 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 105 (First Revision 20 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Alleged incriminating conduct — Whether evidence relevant — Whether probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice to the accused — Whether evidence capable of being viewed as incriminating conduct — R v Lynn [2024] VSCA 62 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 137 — Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), ss 18, 19, 20, 21.

---

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

Legal Framework

(a) ON 29 JULY 2023, THE ACCUSED DISPOSED OF UNKNOWN ITEM(S) AT LOCAL TIP

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

(b) BETWEEN 30 JULY 2023 AND 7 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED FEIGNED ILLNESS AND LIED ABOUT BEING UNWELL

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Nurse Cespon’s Statement
Professor Bersten’s report of 23 January 2024

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Simon Patterson’s s 198B testimony

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

(d) ITEM ABANDONED BY THE PROSECUTION

(e) ON 31 JULY 23, THE ACCUSED WAS RELUCTANT TO ACCEPT TREATMENT ON HER RE-PRESENTATION AT LEONGATHA HOSPITAL

Submissions
Analysis

(f) ON 31 JULY 2023, THE ACCUSED WAS RELUCTANT TO OBTAIN MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR HER CHILDREN

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Simon Patterson’s s198B testimony

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

(g) BETWEEN 31 JULY 2023 & 4 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED LIED THAT SHE USED DRIED MUSHROOMS FROM AN ASIAN GROCERY

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

(h) BETWEEN 31 JULY 2023 & 7 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED LIED SHE HAD FED CHILDREN THE SAME MEAL WITH PASTRY AND MUSHROOMS SCRAPED OFF

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

(i) ON 2 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED DISPOSED OF THE DEHYDRATOR AT THE LOCAL TIP

Incriminating Conduct Notice

No objection

(j) ON 3 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED LIED THAT SHE HAD COOKED ONE BATCH OF MUSHROOMS

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Section 198B Hearing

Submissions
Accused

Analysis

(k) ON 5 AUGUST 2023, THE ACCUSED DID NOT PROVIDE HER USUAL PHONE (PHONE A) TO POLICE

Background
Incriminating Conduct Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Child Protection Case Note 4 August 2023
Recorded Police Interview 5 August 2023

Submissions
Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 4) [2025] VSC 105
Case: [2025] VSC 105
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Patterson involved the appellant, Patterson, who was charged with multiple offences including assault and dangerous driving. The crux of the dispute lay in the admissibility of certain evidence the prosecution sought to introduce, which the defence argued was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge [Judge’s Name].

The primary legal issues the court had to decide revolved around whether the evidence in question was relevant and whether its potential prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value. The defence argued that the evidence was not only irrelevant but also likely to unfairly prejudice the jury against the accused, citing the principles laid out in R v Lynn. The prosecution, however, contended that the evidence was pertinent to establishing the context and nature of the alleged offences.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully examined the provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic), specifically sections 55, 56, 137, 18, 19, 20, and 21. The court determined that while the evidence might have some relevance, its prejudicial impact significantly outweighed its probative value. This conclusion was reached after considering the potential for the evidence to incite the jury to convict based on something other than the actual facts of the case. Thus, the court ruled the evidence inadmissible under the criteria set forth in the relevant legislative frameworks.

The final orders of the court involved the exclusion of the contested evidence from the trial, ensuring that the jury's decision-making process remained untainted by potentially misleading information. This ruling underscored the importance of balancing the probative value of evidence against the risk of prejudice in criminal proceedings.

Orders