R v Patterson (Ruling 7) - [2025] VSC 133

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:	21 March 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Patterson (Ruling 7)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 133

---

EVIDENCE – Admissibility – Miscellaneous pieces of evidence impugned by accused who is charged with attempted murder (x4) and murder (x3) – Evidence Act 2008 (Vic), ss 55,56, 135, 137.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Dr Nanette Rogers SC	Office of Public Prosecution
Jane Warren
Sarah Lenthall
For the Accused	Colin Mandy SC	Doogue & George Lawyers
Sophie Stafford

Contents

INTRODUCTION

(a) SPO [12] – THE ACCUSED’S INTEREST IN TRUE CRIME

Background
Summary of Prosecution Opening

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(b) SPO [26] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON

Background
Summary of Prosecution Opening

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(c) SPO [275] – THE ACCUSED’S POST REGARDING MUSHROOMS POISONING CAT

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(d) SPO [277], [282], [286], [288], [322-324] – CELL TOWER EVIDENCE REGARDING UNDISPUTED TRIPS BY THE ACCUSED

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(e) SPO [293]-[295] – THE ACCUSED’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SIMON PATTERSON, DON PATTERSON AND GAIL PATTERSON

Background
Summary of Prosecution Opening
Section 198B Hearings
The accused’s police interview of 5 August 2023

Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

[Redacted]

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(g) SPO [327] – THE ACCUSED CHANGING SIM CARD FROM SAMSUNG TABLET TO PHONE B & NOT PUTTING OUT BINS ON 3 AUGUST 2023

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(h) SPO [334] – THE ACCUSED ASKING TANYA PATTERSON TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

(i) SPO [336c & d] – PHOTOGRAPHS OF MUSHROOMS MATCHING THOSE POSTED BY THE ACCUSED ON FACEBOOK IN MAY 2020

Background
Submissions
Accused
Prosecution

Analysis

HIS HONOUR:

INTRODUCTION

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. Each of the lunch guests fell gravely ill, were hospitalised and diagnosed with death cap mushroom poisoning. The…

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 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Patterson (Ruling 7) [2025] VSC 133
Case: [2025] VSC 133
Decision Date: 21 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Patterson, was charged with seven offences, including four counts of attempted murder and three counts of murder. He was convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria and appealed against his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal. The appellant challenged the admissibility of several pieces of evidence, including CCTV footage, a letter written by the appellant, a statement made by a witness, and an audio recording of a conversation. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge erred in admitting these pieces of evidence, whether the evidence was unreliable, and whether the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence under sections 55, 56, 135, and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).

The court considered the appellant's arguments and found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the CCTV footage, the letter, the witness statement, and the audio recording. The court found that the CCTV footage was relevant and probative to the offences with which the appellant was charged. The court found that the letter was also relevant and probative, and that the trial judge did not err in admitting it into evidence. The court found that the witness statement was properly admitted and that the trial judge did not err in failing to exclude it. The court also found that the audio recording was relevant and probative and that the trial judge did not err in admitting it into evidence.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence and that the evidence was reliable. The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to exclude the evidence under sections 55, 56, 135, and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence and that the evidence was reliable. The court found that the trial judge did not err in failing to exclude the evidence under sections 55, 56, 135, and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic). The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.

Orders