R v Patterson (Ruling 6) - [2025] VSC 108

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 6)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 108 (First Revision 18 March 2025)

---

EVIDENCE — Admissibility — Coincidence evidence — Where the prosecution relies on 8 similarities in respect of Events 1–4 to prove that, in respect of Events 1–3, the meals supplied were poisoned and to prove that, in respect of Events 1–4, they were deliberately poisoned by the accused — Whether the coincidence evidence has significant probative value (s 98) — Whether the probative value of the coincidence evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect to the accused (s 101) — Perry v R [1982] 150 CLR 580 — Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 98, 101.

SEVERANCE — Where, by reason of the inadmissibility of the coincidence evidence relied on by the prosecution, it would be unfair to the accused to hear all charges together — Order for severance of Charges 1–3 from Charges 4–7 — Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), s 193.

---

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

The Coincidence Notice
Legal Framework
Summary of Prosecution Opening

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).

The Coincidence Notice

The amended Prosecution Coincidence…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 6) [2025] VSC 108
Case: [2025] VSC 108
Decision Date: 14 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Patterson, the defendant faced multiple charges related to an incident that occurred in Victoria. The nature of the dispute involved allegations of assault, aggravated stalking, and other criminal activities. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was fair to try the defendant on all charges together, given that the prosecution's case relied on the inadmissibility of coincidence evidence in relation to some of the charges. The court had to determine whether severance of the charges was warranted under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), section 193.

The court carefully considered the interplay between the admissibility of evidence and the fairness of a joint trial. It was established that the prosecution's case relied on coincidence evidence that was deemed inadmissible. The court held that it would be unfair to the defendant to try all charges together, as the inadmissibility of this coincidence evidence could prejudice the jury's consideration of other charges. Accordingly, the court ordered the severance of Charges 1–3 from Charges 4–7 to ensure a fair trial. This decision was made in accordance with section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), which allows for the severance of charges when necessary to ensure a fair trial.

As a result of the court's ruling, Charges 1–3 were to be tried separately from Charges 4–7. This decision aimed to prevent any potential prejudice that could arise from the inadmissible coincidence evidence, ensuring that the defendant received a fair trial on each set of charges. The final orders of the court mandated that the severance of charges proceed as ordered, and the trial would be conducted in two separate phases.

Orders