Re Patterson

[2025] VSC 478

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

IN THE MATTER of an application for a proceeding suppression order

and 

IN THE MATTER of an application for the release of an exhibit

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT	8 August 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Patterson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 478

---

REDACTED — [Redacted]

RELEASE OF EXHIBIT — Application by media for release of trial exhibit, namely, edited audiovisual recording of offender’s police interview — Where offender opposes release and publication of exhibit — Where key aspects of prosecution’s case were lies told in interview, allegedly constituting incriminating conduct — ABC v Victoria Police & Gardiner [2020] VSC 599 — ABC v Victoria Police & Kehoe [2020] VSC 410 — R v Hemming [2015] VSC 351 — In Films v Victoria Police & Gant [2022] VSC 159 — An application by Nine Network Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 158 — R v Reed-Robertson [2016] VSC 236 — DPP v Williams (Ruling No 1) (2015) 51 VR 408 — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 464JA, 464JB.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms J Warren with Ms S Lenthall	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defence	Mr C Mandy SC with Ms S Stafford	Doogue + George Criminal Lawyers
For the Media Outlets	Mr M Hoyne	Thomson Geer

Contents

Introduction

[Redacted]

Background

Submissions

Erin Patterson

Prosecution

Media Outlets

Analysis

Application by Media for Release/Publication of Exhibit 63 (Edited Audiovisual Recording of Police Interview)

Background

Submissions

Media Outlets

Erin Patterson

Prosecution

Analysis

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. This judgment concerns two applications.

2. [Redacted]

3. Second, an application by certain media outlets for the release of Exhibit 63, namely, the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson’s police interview.

[Redacted]

Background

1. [Redacted]

2. [Redacted]

3. [Redacted]

4. [Redacted]

5. [Redacted]

Submissions

Erin Patterson

1. [Redacted]

Prosecution

1. [Redacted]

Media Outlets

1. [Redacted]

Analysis

1. [Redacted]

2. [Redacted]

3. [Redacted]

4. [Redacted]

5. [Redacted]

Application by Media for Release/Publication of Exhibit 63 (Edited Audiovisual Recording of Police Interview)

Background

1. I turn then to the application by the media for the release of Exhibit 63, namely the edited audiovisual recording of Ms Patterson’s police interview on 5 August 2023.

2. Relevantly s 464JA of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) prohibits the supply, copying, editing, playing and publication of an audiovisual recording of a police interview except in accordance with the direction of a court under s 464JB.

3. Section 464JB states simply and relevantly:

   (2)A court may give directions, with or without conditions, as to the supply, copying, editing, erasure, playing or publishing of an audio recording or an audiovisual recording.

4. In DPP v Williams (Ruling No 1),[1] Hollingworth J helpfully set out a non-exhaustive list of factors relevant to the exercise of the courts discretion under s 464JB:

   [1](2015) 51 VR 408, [43].

   (a)The privacy of the interviewee, interviewers, and others mentioned in the interview;

   (b)Whether the interviewee consents to the release;

   (c)The attitude of other people affected by the interview;

   (d)Whether any person (such as victims or children) would be adversely affected by release;

   (e)Whether the record of interview discloses graphic details of offending;

   (f)Whether any criminal investigations or trials are ongoing;

   (g)Whether release may undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process;

   (h)The level of contemporaneous public interest in the case;

   (i)Whether release will enhance the fair and accurate reporting of the case;

   (j)The principle of open justice (where the record of interview has been played in open court); and

   (k)The nature of the proposed publication.

5. For the reason given below, I direct that a redacted version of Exhibit 63 may be copied and released to the relevant media outlets, who may copy it, play it and publish it in whole or in part. The redactions concern certain references to Ms Patterson’s children in the recording.[2] 

Submissions

[2]I note that there is a proceeding suppression order in relation to Ms Patterson’s children dated 1 May 2025. It prohibits publication of the children’s names, images and schools attended by them, past and present. 

Media Outlets

1. Turning to submissions, the media outlets referred me to a number of cases[3] and submitted the following, having regard to Hollingworth J’s criteria;

   [3]ABC v Victoria Police & Gardiner [2020] VSC 599; ABC v Victoria Police & Kehoe [2020] VSC 410; R v Hemming [2015] VSC 351; In Films v Victoria Police & Gant [2022] VSC 159; An application by Nine Network Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 158; R v Reed-Robertson [2016] VSC 236; DPP v Williams (Ruling No 1) (2015) 51 VR 408.

   (a) The only significant privacy concern might be the children, but references to their names could be redacted;

   (b)That Ms Patterson’s opposition to release and publication was not determinative;

   (c)That the attitude of the victims and victims’ families should be ascertained;

   (d)      That there were no other criminal trials in respect of Ms Patterson;

   (e)That release and publication would not undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process;

   (f)That the level of contemporaneous public interest in Ms Patterson’s case is a powerful consideration in favour of release/publication;

   (g)That publishing the recording would enhance the fair and accurate reporting of the case;

   (h)      The principle of open justice supports release/publication;

   (i)That the application is made by established media players who have acted responsibly in the course of reporting on Ms Patterson’s case, unlike some others.

Erin Patterson

1. Ms Patterson indicated on 8 July 2025 that she opposed the release of Exhibit 63 to the media.

2. Relying on what Cummins J said in DPP v Thomas,[4] referred to in DPP v Williams (Ruling No 1),[5] Ms Patterson submitted that publication of Exhibit 63 could deter suspects from participating in audiovisual recorded police interviews.

   [4][2006] VSC 88.

   [5](2015) 51 VR 408, [7].

3. Ms Patterson also submitted that reporting of the trial had not been fair and accurate. It was implied that the use of the recording might also be unfair and inaccurate.

Prosecution

1. Apart from drawing my attention to the case of Kehoe,[6] the prosecution simply submitted that the attitude of the victims and victims’ families was a relevant consideration but was unknown.

   [6]ABC v Victoria Police & Kehoe [2020] VSC 410.

2. On the 6 August 2025, the prosecution advised the court by email that ‘We have conversed with the family available and can confirm that they do not take any view regarding the release of the record of interview to the media’.

3. On the 7 August 2025, the prosecution further advised the court by email that ‘Simon Patterson has requested that, if the court is minded to release the offender’s record of interview, the children’s names be blanked out in order to avoid any accidental playing of those names by the media outlets’.

Analysis

1. Turning to my analysis, a key part of the prosecution case was alleged incriminating conduct by Ms Patterson during the course of her recorded interview. Ms Patterson admitted at her trial that she lied to police in the recording about not foraging for mushrooms, not dehydrating food and not having a dehydrator but denied that this amounted to incriminating conduct. Rather, she argued she lied from fear of being wrongly accused of committing the alleged offences. The prosecution submitted that the only reasonable explanation for these lies — and other conduct — was that she believed she was guilty of the charged offences. The prosecution also submitted that she lied about her telephone number in the recording, which Ms Patterson denied: the prosecution relied on this too as incriminating conduct.

2. The importance of these lies to the prosecution case, and the strong contemporaneous public interest in this case, militate strongly in favour of the release and publication of Exhibit 63, as does the principle of open justice. I also accept the media’s submission that it will promote fair and accurate reporting. Rather than having to depend on interpretations of the recording by journalists and commentators, the public will be better placed to make their own assessments of the significance of Ms Patterson’s answers in the recording, having regard to both the content of her answers and her demeanour.

3. The absence of any graphic details in the recording also supports release/publication.

4. The victims and victims’ family do not oppose release and publication. Redactions can be made in the interests of Ms Patterson’s children’s privacy.[7] Given all the publicity to date about Ms Patterson and her trial, her privacy will not be significantly affected by release/publication of the recording.

   [7] The following questions and answers will be redacted from the released Exhibit: Q and A 143 (after the word “all right” in Q 143) to Q & A 146; in Q 293, the words “I think that’s gunna be [Redacted] phone”; in Q 298, the words “[Redacted]; in Q 299, the words “so the Oppo is [Redacted]”; Q&A 308;    

5. The above matters in my view outweigh any risk of other suspects being deterred from participating in police interviews because of fear of publication of their interviews.  

---