IN THE MATTER of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘the Act’)
and
IN THE MATTER of an application under s 199 of the Act
BETWEEN:
ERIN PATTERSON	Applicant
v
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 July 2024
DATE OF RULING:	30 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Patterson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 448

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Place of trial – Pre-trial ruling – Accused charged with murder and attempted murder – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 11, 160, 169, 192, 199 – Crimes Act 1958 ss 9, 359 – Magistrates’ Court Act 1989 s 3 – Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 s 80 – DPP v Towle (Ruling No 1) [2007] VSC 551 – R v Giddings [1916] VLR 359 – R v Patterson, Hartley and Carrighan (1867) 4 WW & A’B (L) 43 – R v Iaria and Panozzo (2004) 9 VR 425 – R v Wilkie (2005) 64 NSWLR 125 – Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 – Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27 – SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 26 CLR 362 – DPP v Leys (2012) 44 VR 1 – Hynes v Bux (Supreme Court of Victoria, Nathan J, 13 November 1996).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Mandy SC with Ms S Stafford	Doogue + George
For the Respondent	Ms K Judd KC with Ms J Warren and Ms S Lenthall	Office of Public Prosecutions

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This matter concerns the wording and meaning of s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘CPA’) which deals with ‘Place of hearing of criminal trial’. The accused, EP, has been committed to stand trial on three charges of murder and five charges of attempted murder. The first four charges relate to alleged victims Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson, Donald Patterson and Ian Wilkinson. All the remaining charges relate to the accused’s former husband Simon Patterson.

In essence it is alleged that on 29 July 2023, Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson, Donald Patterson and Ian Wilkinson all attended a lunch prepared for them and presented to them by EP at her home in Leongatha, and that she added a poisonous substance to the luncheon food which led to the deaths of Heather Wilkinson, Gail Patterson and Donald Patterson and nearly killed Ian Wilkinson. It is further alleged that EP engaged in similar conduct (the administration of poison) in 2021 and 2022 in respect of her husband Simon Patterson.

At this stage no indictment has been filed and no Crown opening has been prepared, as the case has been committed to this Court for managing through our fast-track process, and s 198B examination of witnesses will occur in lieu of cross-examination of witnesses at committal.[1]
[1]Ms…

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 Re Patterson

Details

AGLC: Re Patterson [2024] VSC 448
Case: [2024] VSC 448
Decision Date: 30 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Patterson involved the accused, Patterson, who was charged with the offences of murder and attempted murder. The dispute centred on the determination of the appropriate venue for the trial, with arguments presented on the constitutionality and statutory provisions governing the place of trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with resolving the legal issues concerning the constitutionality of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and its interaction with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, as well as the applicability of the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1958 and the Magistrates’ Court Act 1989. The accused argued that the trial should be held in the Magistrates’ Court, contending that the statutory provisions were inconsistent with the constitutional right to a trial by jury. The Director of Public Prosecutions, on the other hand, maintained that the Supreme Court had the appropriate jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the precedents set by previous cases such as R v Giddings and DPP v Towle. It was determined that the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 was consistent with the constitutional right to a trial by jury, and that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The court found that the accused's arguments did not succeed, and that the trial should proceed in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court made an order that the trial of Patterson for the offences of murder and attempted murder should be conducted in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The decision affirmed the constitutionality of the statutory provisions and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in matters of serious indictable offences.

Orders