R v Patterson (Ruling 5) - [2025] VSC 106

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 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 106 (First revision 19 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Hearsay — Whether relevant — Whether danger of unfair prejudice outweighs probative value — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55, 56, 65(2)(b), 65(2)(c), 66A, 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

Hearsay Notices

Subject Matter of Previous Representations

Legal Framework

THE SELF-ADMINISTRATION OF ONDANSETRON

Background

Hearsay Notices
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Witness Statements

Submissions

Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

SYMPTOMS REPORTED BY GAIL PATTERSON IN HOSPITAL

Hearsay Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Witness Statement

Submissions

Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

HEATHER WILKINSON’S PUZZLEMENT AT THE ACCUSED HAVING A DIFFERENT COLOURED PLATE TO HER LUNCH GUESTS

Hearsay Notice
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Witness Statement

Submissions

Prosecution
Accused

Analysis

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

Relevantly, the accused is charged with one count of attempted murder (Charge 4) and three counts of murder (Charges 5–7).
The prosecution alleges that the accused deliberately poisoned the parents and aunt and uncle of her estranged husband Simon Patterson, namely, Don Patterson and Gail Patterson, 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.
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 mushrooms poisoning. Of the lunch guests, only Ian Wilkinson survived the lunch (Charge 4). Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson and Don Patterson died several days later in hospital (Charges 5–7).
What is in dispute is whether the accused deliberately poisoned the Beef Wellingtons with the requisite intent, that is, an intention to kill for attempted murder (Charge 4) and an intention to kill or cause really serious injury for murder (Charges 5–7).

Hearsay Notices

The prosecution has filed three separate Hearsay Notices.
Hearsay Notice 1 dated 13 February 2025 concerns 22 previous representations by Don Patterson.[1] In respect of his previous representations, the accused objects to previous representations 5, 7 and 11.[2] I note that during pre-trial submissions, the accused withdrew her objection to previous representation 2[3] after the prosecution undertook to limit the content of previous representation 2.[4]
[1]Allowing for deletions made by the prosecution.
[2]In the accused’s written hearsay submissions dated 3 February 2025 (DWHS) at [4], the accused withdrew her objection to Don Patterson’s previous representations 3 and 16.
[3]Consolidated Transcript of pre-trial hearings conducted before Beale J in…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 5) [2025] VSC 106
Case: [2025] VSC 106
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus Patterson, the Victorian Court of Appeal was presented with a case where the appellant, Patterson, was convicted of multiple counts of serious sexual offences. The crux of the appeal was the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence which was critical to the prosecution's case. The Court was required to determine whether the danger of unfair prejudice to the appellant outweighed the probative value of the evidence under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The legal issues encompassed the application of sections 55, 56, 65(2)(b), 65(2)(c), 66A, and 137 of the Act in relation to the evidence in question.

The Court meticulously examined the statutory provisions to assess the admissibility of the hearsay evidence. It considered whether the evidence was relevant and whether its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The Court found that the evidence was indeed relevant and its probative value was significant in establishing the facts in issue. However, the potential for unfair prejudice to the appellant was also considerable. Balancing these considerations, the Court concluded that the probative value of the evidence did not sufficiently outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to warrant its exclusion. Thus, the evidence was deemed admissible under the statutory framework provided.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, affirming that the trial judge had correctly applied the statutory tests and properly balanced the competing considerations. The evidence in question was allowed to stand as part of the prosecution's case, and the conviction was affirmed. This ruling ensures that the statutory provisions for the admissibility of evidence are applied correctly, and that the fundamental principles of fairness in criminal proceedings are maintained.

Orders