October 8, 2025 • 21 mins
It's confirmed. Triple murderer Erin Patterson will appeal her convictions and Crown prosecutors will appeal her sentence. The Mushroom Cook team sits down with a special guest to unpack what this all means.
The Mushroom Cook team is Brooke Grebert-Craig, Laura Placella, Anthony Dowsley, Jordy Atkinson and Jonty Burton.
The Mushroom Cook is a Herald Sun production for True Crime Australia.
Go to themushroomcook.com.au for news, features, previous episodes and more
Subscribers get our bonus Sunday shows with crime reporter Anthony Dowsley. CrimeX subscribers: find this episode in your podcast feed
Subscribers to the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph, Courier Mail, Adelaide Advertiser or News regional titles can listen through the App.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
It was always on the cards Aaron Patterson appealing her
murder convictions over the notorious Mushroom Lunch. Her new look
legal team have now confirmed that's exactly what she will do.
But this week we heard the prosecution will also be appealing,
calling her sentence manifestly inadequate. We'll discuss all of this
(00:20):
on the show with a special guest. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig,
and this is the Mushroom cook. I'm back with my colleague,
court reporter Laura Plasella. Hi, Laura, Hey Brook.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
It's great to be back. And a lot has happened
over the last few weeks.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Yes, it has. So now we have two appeals at play.
Aaron is appealing and the prosecution are appealing.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So last week Aaron appeared in court for a very
brief five minute hearing. She has a new lawyer. His
name is Richard Edney, and he told the court that
Erin will be appealing her convictions, and that was the
first time that her legal team had confirmed that would
be happening. But it's worth mentioning that our veteran crime
(01:04):
reporter Anthony Dowsley, who our listeners know very well, he
has been reporting for months that Aeron's team would be
lodging that appeal, so it was only a matter of
time until it was confirmed. So I just mentioned mister Edney.
He appeared in that brief hearing. But we understand that
there'll be another barrister who will be brought in to
(01:24):
actually run Erin's appeal. His name is Julian McMahon and
he is a top human rights lawyer. He's very well
known in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yes, he represented two of the Barley Nine. He tried
to save the ringleaders Andrew Chan and Muran Sukermarin from execution.
So McMahon had previously described himself as having history of
looking after people who no one else really wanted to defend.
And as I mentioned before, the prosecution are appealing.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yes, and that was only confirmed this week. And again
Dows has actually been reporting for about a month now
that the Crown prosecutors were quite underwhelmed by the thirty
three year minimum sentence that Erin was handed. Sources told
him that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering an appeal,
and on Monday we got that confirmation. They have lodged
(02:17):
their paperwork and they're claiming that Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
So, Laura, we've now got a special guest on the show,
Lauren Cassimatis, a criminal defense lawyer and founder of Gallant Law.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let's dyal her In.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Hi, Lauren, thank you so much for joining us. So
we've obviously got two appeals at play here. We'll start
with Erons. What exactly is she appealing?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
So Eron's council haven't released their grounds yet, so at
the moment they're preparing their appeal ground. So what that
means is you don't just get an automatic right to appeal.
You have to prepare written submissions on why the court
should even entertain it. So at the moment, they're preparing
those grounds and going through transcripts from the trial to
(03:02):
see if there's anything there that they can submit. So
usually if you're appealing a conviction, which is what her
team's doing, they're appealing the finding of guilt delivered by
the jury. Usually the grounds there are that one there
was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict by the jury. What
that means is that on all the evidence the jury heard,
(03:24):
they couldn't have come to that decision, it's not the
right verdict, so that's probably the.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Main ground they'll run with.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Another ground is that perhaps the judge, the trial judge
made an error in terms of his legal directions to
the jury. So the jury's there to analyze the evidence
and apply it to the decision making process. The judge
is there to apply the law and direct them on
any kind of legal point. So if the judge's made
(03:51):
an error there, that's appellable as well. There's a third
ground sometimes US lawyers run, but it's very rare, and
that's called in comps and see of council. So what
that means is that the trial barrister running it on
behalf of Miss Patterson was incompetence, so to speak. It's
very rare that one, and I doubt in this scenario.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
That's the case.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I know her cur legal team very well and can't
imagine they made any kind of error. And there's also
a general ground and miscarriage of justice, and that sort
of ties into the saturary verdict.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So overall, the jury made a nearerror.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
To the point that it's just a significant miscarriage of
justice and we must quash the conviction.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
We spoke about in a previous episode that Aaron had
twenty eight days to lodge an appeal. But that's changed,
hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
So yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
So generally there's twenty eight days from the date of sentence,
so not from the date she was found guilty, but
from the date the judge sentenced her. It's changed in
terms of now you can apply for an extension of
a further twenty eight days. However, what hasn't changed is
that often US lawyers can still seek an out of
time application. That's been the go for forever because with
(05:03):
these sort of complex long trials, twenty eight days just
isn't enough to go through all the evidence, all the
legal submissions, all the directions from the judge. We need
time to go through every single document and transcript with
a fine tooth comb. So often we're seeking extensions and
applying for out of time anyway, and it's not an
easy exercise. You have to satisfy the Court of Appeal
(05:25):
that the DeLay's justified. But yes, now there's I guess
an extra kick at the ball with this extension in
twenty eight days, And.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Can you explain to us what the process looks like?
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So with Miss Patterson's appeal, what would happen is that
once the legal team is satisfied with their grounds, they
actually prepare what we call a written case. So there's
a document that puts forward all the submissions, refers to
relevant case law and precedent, refers to the actual trial
itself and any evidence that was given or any legal
arguments made, and then that's put forward to the prosecution,
(06:00):
to the Crown and to the court and it's then
up to the court to consider whether they even are
willing to grant permission to the legal team to be
heard on the appeal. So we call that leave to appeal.
So again you don't get an automatic right to appeal.
You have to persuade the court that they ought to
even permit you to be heard. So that's the leave
(06:20):
to appeal application that's usually heard by one judge generally,
And what would happen then is that if the judge
is satisfied there's merit in appealing. Sometimes the appeal might
even proceed on the same day the decisions made around
granting leave or it's booked off for an appeal. And
with a matter like this, I suspect we booked off
(06:42):
for an appeal because it's just so complex and probably
before three judges.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
What does the timeline look here? I know the appeal
process sometimes can take a while. Are we looking at
an appeal next year?
Speaker 3 (06:54):
This hearing subject to the court's diary.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Possibly could get squeezed in andto this year, but probably
more likely next year. There are many appeals on foots
and the Court of Appeal is relatively small compared to
the other jurisdictions, so trying to fit it in the
court schedule prioritizing matters usually they prioritize the ones where
the accused is in.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Custody, so that that will speed it up.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
But on the other hand, I probably missed a step
earlier where once the defense put forward their submissions to
the prosecution, prosecution then need time totally respond.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
So that's probably going to take another month as.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Well for them to then prepare submissions in response, put
it forward to the court reviews it. So I'm going
to say it's likely to be next year.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
What are the chances are that she gets a retrial
and how common are they?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
They do happen to say it's common.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Look, I have to say it's all case by case,
but they definitely happened. There's also a chance of the
conviction just beingqushed without a retrial, So a decision might
be made where they say, look, there was such a
miscarriage of justice, there is just no evidence here to
convict her. We're going to quash the conviction and she exonerated.
Or the other alternative is that, okay, look we'll send
(08:05):
it back to the Supreme Court and the whole trial
just starts over again from scratch, so the same witnesses
will be called. It might be a different legal team
with a different legal strategy, especially from the prosecution side.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
But to answer your.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Question around how common they are, how likely, it really
just comes down to whether they can get over the line.
In terms of the appeal, this case is a circumstantial case.
So what that means is there was no direct evidence
of her intention to murder the family. You know, another
case is a defense might be around identity, did the
accused actually do it, or it might be self defense.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
In this scenario, none of those irrelevant.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
It just comes down to whether she actually intended to
kill the victims. So when I say circumstantial case, it's
not like they found diary records of her saying, oh
I plan on doing this and I want to do
this to them, or it's not actually made admissions around
wanting to cause harm.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
They piece together a puzzle pie.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
So you know the fact that she didn't get significantly
ill compared to the others, that's a piece in the puzzle.
The fact that she was researching mushrooms, the fact that
the plates were different colors, the fact she lied to
police afterwards. It's called post defense conduct. So all of
those things you added together to create a case that
the prosecution says supports the only case theory being that
(09:23):
she intended to murder the victims. So overall, in the
court appeal they have to decide whether all of this
circumstantial evidence does stack up or whether something is so
flawed in the process that there needs to be a retrial.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
And that puzzle analogy you gave is actually one that
was mentioned in the trial too. But now to sort
of switch gears, what are the DPP appealing?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
So they're appealing sentence.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
So they're obviously satisfied with the conviction, but what they're
not satisfied with is, I guess the severity of the sentence.
So their legal argument is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
So from the defense perspective, if they would appeal sentence,
they would argue the sentence is manifestly excessive, it's too severe,
the prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Saying it's too lenient.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
So she got a non parole period of thirty three years.
That means she's eligible to be released on parole once
she's served thirty three years in custody minus the time
she's done on remand so the court always deducts time
for the period that prisoners remain in custody while the
case is on foot and is yet to be finalized.
When they're eligible for parole, it doesn't necessarily mean they
(10:33):
will come out. So the parole board still has to
consider the progress prisoners of mate in custody, and it
might be that they say, look, Nut, we still want
you to do another couple of years, and they will reassess,
so she doesn't automatically.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Get released at that thirty three year mark.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
But what the prosecution is saying is that, well, we
still want her to be ineligible for more years, We
want her to spend more time in custody before she's eailable,
or we don't want her to be eligible at all.
We want her to do a straight life sentence, So
that's their argument. In terms of the grounds, usually what
happens is in their ridden grounds, and similar to the
(11:11):
commction process, they've got to satisfy the court that there's
enough to even be permitted to appeals, so to get leave.
In those grounds, they'll be saying that perhaps the trial
judge didn't focus on relevant factors in the sentence in consideration,
or that perhaps the judge put too much emphasis on
one factor or not the other. So, for example, for
(11:31):
the prosecutions perspective, one significant factor.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Is that there's no remorse.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
When somebody runs a trial, it can't then be said
that they are remorseful for what happened, and that's something
that's taken into account when somebody pleads guilty and they're
actually given a reduction on sentence. So a big factor
for them is that there's no remorse. The second one
would be probably that what's aggravating in terms of the crime.
The features of the crime is that she planned it.
(11:58):
It was all pre planned and again she lied. So
if the trial judge hasn't put enough emphasis on the
lack of remorse or hasn't.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Again put enough weight on the fact that she lied.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
For example, they might say that the sentence is too
lenient and that the judge needs to.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Revisit those factors.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Or it could be that the trial judge placed too
much weight on Miss Patterson's personal circumstances. So I know
that the judge really took into account the fact that
this is high profile in the media, and she was
suffering in custody more so than other prisoners because of
all the attention she was getting. Then she was essentially
put into isolation, and I can tell you the conditions
(12:37):
are just shocking when you're in isolation. So the judge
is taken into account that burden on her and that's
suffering in custody, the fact that she'd be suffering more
than others. The judge also took into account her age,
so essentially she'll.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Be an elderly woman when she is.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Eligible to be released, and the fact she had no
prior history. So all of those factors. The prosecute might say, well,
the judge just put too much weight on factors in
her favor and needs to I guess shift things in
terms of the balance in exercise, and you know, weighing
up what's appropriate.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
So with two appeals at plate, will they be happening
at the same time or what does that look like?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
They probably will from a court resource financial perspective, they'll
probably want to run them together. So what will happen
is defense will submit their grounds on the conviction. The
prosecution will submit grounds on the sentence being lenient. But
then we'll also respond to the conviction argument and say
that the conviction stands, it was the right decision, there
(13:41):
was nothing wrong with the process or the verdict. Defense
will respond to the sentence and say the sentence is fair,
it wasn't lenient, and they'll also argue why the sentence
shouldn't be increased. So the prosecution will be argument should
be increase, Defense will be arguing that it should remain
the same. I really doubt defense will be arguing that
(14:01):
it should be decreased. I don't see any merit in that,
and I really doubt they'll do that. So it does
kind of run together because the court has to entertain
the responses as well as the original submissions. They'll also
make submissions probably on whether there needs to be retrial,
whether conviction's quashed. So there might be some grounds around
that as well, in terms of the delay already and
having this case hanging over Ms. Patterson's said, and not
(14:23):
just her head, but the victim's families, that the witnesses
that have to recount all the tragic circumstances. It might
be that the court spares them of that process potentially.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
So you touched upon Aaron's conditions in prison, Can you
talk our listeners through what it is like at Dane
Phillis Frost.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
So Dane Phyllis, it's obviously in all female prison, you
have whole range of prisoners in there in terms of
security reso. You've got women in there that are on
remand's awaiting trial. That means they haven't been proven guilty
of a crime yet, and in fact, there would be
many women in there that are actually innocent. Then you've
got women in there that have been convicted or pleaded
(15:06):
guilty of a crime, but they're considered low risks.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So for example, it might be that.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
They've committed theft, but it didn't involve any violence or
any harm to anyone, so to speak, like it's a
financial harm, but there's no safety risk to someone mentally
or physically, and then you've got other prisons in there
that are high risks. So for example, they have been
convicted of a murder, they're considered extremely violent, or they're
emotional or cognitive or intellectual or mental health condition means
(15:35):
that they might be.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
A psychological risk to others or even to themselves.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
So some women are prone to self harming in there,
or harming others. So you've got this whole melting pot.
Whereas with the male prisons, there's a lot of different units,
a lot of different facilities that not segregate, but you know,
there's one facility that's for low risk offenders, and then
there's another facility just for people in remind that are
(16:00):
still innocent, and then there's another facility for high risk offenders.
So dan Phyllis, everyone's together. It's one being melting pot.
I can tell you that a lot of my female
clients have said that they have felt very threatened in
They're very unsafe and very vulnerable. You know, they really
are fending for themselves, trying to play the game so
they don't become bait, so to speak. You know that
(16:23):
there's the big dogs in custody and you've got to
appease them just to protect yourself. But look, there's some positives.
There's a lot of forensic case workers and psychologists in
the jails that really genuinely care about the prisoners, and
I know they work really hard to give them some
sort of therapeutic treatment and support. They've got some programs
(16:43):
in custody, like educational programs, they can actually do tape courses,
they can work in the kitchen and earn a bit
of an income, and I know some of my clients
that work in the bakery section really enjoyed. It keeps
them busy and productive. But overall it's a frightening experience.
And even one day in jail is enough to break someone.
So thirty three years, I could tell you right now,
(17:05):
her quality of life has already deteriorated, and I can't
imagine what a quality of life will be like on release.
So for those angry about the fact that she is
eligible for prole then I think it is a life sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Nonetheless, Well, thank you so much for answering all of
our questions. I just wanted to ask you, are there
any other thoughts you had about this case that you
wanted to share.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I think just in terms of the attention it's had
by the community and the media. I mean, I think
everyone loves who'd done it, and everyone loves a mystery,
and I know in this case it's not necessarily who'd
done it, but it did trigger people's minds around what
on earth was she thinking? Or did she actually do it?
Did she mean to do it? So I think it's
(17:51):
a great thing that now the community gets more exposure
to the court system and how cases operate and what
sort of how defense and prosecution all so run their case.
I think from an educational point of view, I'm glad
to see that it's out there in the media. But
I just also want to remind people that again we're
dealing with people and where they spoke this fire. Not
(18:12):
necessarily in criminal law, someone has to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. And whilst
the jury found miss Patterson guilty here, there were holes
in the case.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
There were weaknesses.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
We didn't have a motive, which usually these sort of
matters that there is one, and some things just didn't
stuck up.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Again, there was no sort of financial incentive for her
to do this, or there was no hatred.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
So I think when people.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Start getting a little bit upset around outcomes, do visit
court cases a bit more. Do follow some of these
more live recordings, because it gives you a better insight
into how the justice system works, whilse defense.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Lawyers do what we do.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
And just reminding again that people are innocent before proven guilty.
It's not the other way around. And sometimes people aren't
guilty of what's being alleged. And I think it's really
important to just show some compassion and empathy for how
scary an experience it is for someone on trial that
hasn't committed a crime.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Thank you so much, Lauren.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Oh, thank you so much for having me. It's been great.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Before we go, there's one other little update in Aaron's case.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
There is you and I Brook. We wrote a story
the other week about Aaron's car, that notorious red MG,
being up for sale. We found the advertisement on Facebook
marketplace and we ran our checks and balances and we
figured out that it is Eron's car.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Yes, because the description actually didn't say that it was.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
No, there was no mention at all of Erin in
that advertisement. It was put up by her power of
attorney Ali Pryor, who we have previously discussed on the podcast,
and it was listed for eighteen and a half thousand dollars.
And I'll read from the ad now price to sell
quickly telling my mg ZST Corps twenty twenty three model
(20:04):
with just twenty two thousand kilometers on the clock. Car
is an excellent condition, drives beautifully, super economical and still
feels like new, perfect little suv, stylish, reliable and cheap
to run. Only selling because of an upgrade.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
And as soon as you and I started making inquiries
about it, the ad got taken down very quickly.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
May I add, And you spoke to Miss Prior, didn't you?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yes, I did so. I had about a ten minute
conversation with Miss Pryor on the phone and she said
that Erin murdering three people and this is quote had
nothing to do with me selling her car. This is
another quote. She said, I have power of attorney to
sell her car if that's what I'm instructed to do.
It's a private ad selling a car.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
So just to remind our listeners, this was the car
that Erin famously spoke at the front of in the
week after the deadly lunch Brook. You were there recording
Erin as she was speaking to the media.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Yes, I think everyone will remember that footage of her
crying crocodile tears in the front of her car.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
And it was also the same car that Aaron used
to go to the Kunwora tip on not one but
two occasions, the second time dumping the dehydrator. And we've
mentioned this before, but currently Aaron's house is restrained, which
means she can't sell it, but the car is not restrained,
so it remains one of her only other assets that's
worth selling to make a little bit of cash.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
So the appeals process is definitely happening on both sides,
so we're guaranteed to see more updates in this case.
To stay updated, go to Heraldsign dot com dot au
or watch out for future episodes.
It was always on the cards Aaron Patterson appealing her
murder convictions over the notorious Mushroom Lunch. Her new look
legal team have now confirmed that's exactly what she will do.
But this week we heard the prosecution will also be appealing,
calling her sentence manifestly inadequate. We'll discuss all of this
(00:20):
on the show with a special guest. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig,
and this is the Mushroom cook. I'm back with my colleague,
court reporter Laura Plasella. Hi, Laura, Hey Brook.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
It's great to be back. And a lot has happened
over the last few weeks.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
Yes, it has. So now we have two appeals at play.
Aaron is appealing and the prosecution are appealing.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
So last week Aaron appeared in court for a very
brief five minute hearing. She has a new lawyer. His
name is Richard Edney, and he told the court that
Erin will be appealing her convictions, and that was the
first time that her legal team had confirmed that would
be happening. But it's worth mentioning that our veteran crime
(01:04):
reporter Anthony Dowsley, who our listeners know very well, he
has been reporting for months that Aeron's team would be
lodging that appeal, so it was only a matter of
time until it was confirmed. So I just mentioned mister Edney.
He appeared in that brief hearing. But we understand that
there'll be another barrister who will be brought in to
(01:24):
actually run Erin's appeal. His name is Julian McMahon and
he is a top human rights lawyer. He's very well
known in Australia.
Speaker 1 (01:33):
Yes, he represented two of the Barley Nine. He tried
to save the ringleaders Andrew Chan and Muran Sukermarin from execution.
So McMahon had previously described himself as having history of
looking after people who no one else really wanted to defend.
And as I mentioned before, the prosecution are appealing.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
Yes, and that was only confirmed this week. And again
Dows has actually been reporting for about a month now
that the Crown prosecutors were quite underwhelmed by the thirty
three year minimum sentence that Erin was handed. Sources told
him that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering an appeal,
and on Monday we got that confirmation. They have lodged
(02:17):
their paperwork and they're claiming that Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
So, Laura, we've now got a special guest on the show,
Lauren Cassimatis, a criminal defense lawyer and founder of Gallant Law.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
Let's dyal her In.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Hi, Lauren, thank you so much for joining us. So
we've obviously got two appeals at play here. We'll start
with Erons. What exactly is she appealing?
Speaker 4 (02:41):
So Eron's council haven't released their grounds yet, so at
the moment they're preparing their appeal ground. So what that
means is you don't just get an automatic right to appeal.
You have to prepare written submissions on why the court
should even entertain it. So at the moment, they're preparing
those grounds and going through transcripts from the trial to
(03:02):
see if there's anything there that they can submit. So
usually if you're appealing a conviction, which is what her
team's doing, they're appealing the finding of guilt delivered by
the jury. Usually the grounds there are that one there
was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict by the jury. What
that means is that on all the evidence the jury heard,
(03:24):
they couldn't have come to that decision, it's not the
right verdict, so that's probably the.
Speaker 3 (03:29):
Main ground they'll run with.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Another ground is that perhaps the judge, the trial judge
made an error in terms of his legal directions to
the jury. So the jury's there to analyze the evidence
and apply it to the decision making process. The judge
is there to apply the law and direct them on
any kind of legal point. So if the judge's made
(03:51):
an error there, that's appellable as well. There's a third
ground sometimes US lawyers run, but it's very rare, and
that's called in comps and see of council. So what
that means is that the trial barrister running it on
behalf of Miss Patterson was incompetence, so to speak. It's
very rare that one, and I doubt in this scenario.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
That's the case.
Speaker 4 (04:11):
I know her cur legal team very well and can't
imagine they made any kind of error. And there's also
a general ground and miscarriage of justice, and that sort
of ties into the saturary verdict.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
So overall, the jury made a nearerror.
Speaker 4 (04:26):
To the point that it's just a significant miscarriage of
justice and we must quash the conviction.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
We spoke about in a previous episode that Aaron had
twenty eight days to lodge an appeal. But that's changed,
hasn't it.
Speaker 3 (04:39):
So yeah, that's right.
Speaker 4 (04:40):
So generally there's twenty eight days from the date of sentence,
so not from the date she was found guilty, but
from the date the judge sentenced her. It's changed in
terms of now you can apply for an extension of
a further twenty eight days. However, what hasn't changed is
that often US lawyers can still seek an out of
time application. That's been the go for forever because with
(05:03):
these sort of complex long trials, twenty eight days just
isn't enough to go through all the evidence, all the
legal submissions, all the directions from the judge. We need
time to go through every single document and transcript with
a fine tooth comb. So often we're seeking extensions and
applying for out of time anyway, and it's not an
easy exercise. You have to satisfy the Court of Appeal
(05:25):
that the DeLay's justified. But yes, now there's I guess
an extra kick at the ball with this extension in
twenty eight days, And.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Can you explain to us what the process looks like?
Speaker 4 (05:36):
So with Miss Patterson's appeal, what would happen is that
once the legal team is satisfied with their grounds, they
actually prepare what we call a written case. So there's
a document that puts forward all the submissions, refers to
relevant case law and precedent, refers to the actual trial
itself and any evidence that was given or any legal
arguments made, and then that's put forward to the prosecution,
(06:00):
to the Crown and to the court and it's then
up to the court to consider whether they even are
willing to grant permission to the legal team to be
heard on the appeal. So we call that leave to appeal.
So again you don't get an automatic right to appeal.
You have to persuade the court that they ought to
even permit you to be heard. So that's the leave
(06:20):
to appeal application that's usually heard by one judge generally,
And what would happen then is that if the judge
is satisfied there's merit in appealing. Sometimes the appeal might
even proceed on the same day the decisions made around
granting leave or it's booked off for an appeal. And
with a matter like this, I suspect we booked off
(06:42):
for an appeal because it's just so complex and probably
before three judges.
Speaker 2 (06:47):
What does the timeline look here? I know the appeal
process sometimes can take a while. Are we looking at
an appeal next year?
Speaker 3 (06:54):
This hearing subject to the court's diary.
Speaker 4 (06:57):
Possibly could get squeezed in andto this year, but probably
more likely next year. There are many appeals on foots
and the Court of Appeal is relatively small compared to
the other jurisdictions, so trying to fit it in the
court schedule prioritizing matters usually they prioritize the ones where
the accused is in.
Speaker 3 (07:12):
Custody, so that that will speed it up.
Speaker 4 (07:15):
But on the other hand, I probably missed a step
earlier where once the defense put forward their submissions to
the prosecution, prosecution then need time totally respond.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
So that's probably going to take another month as.
Speaker 4 (07:25):
Well for them to then prepare submissions in response, put
it forward to the court reviews it. So I'm going
to say it's likely to be next year.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
What are the chances are that she gets a retrial
and how common are they?
Speaker 3 (07:39):
They do happen to say it's common.
Speaker 4 (07:41):
Look, I have to say it's all case by case,
but they definitely happened. There's also a chance of the
conviction just beingqushed without a retrial, So a decision might
be made where they say, look, there was such a
miscarriage of justice, there is just no evidence here to
convict her. We're going to quash the conviction and she exonerated.
Or the other alternative is that, okay, look we'll send
(08:05):
it back to the Supreme Court and the whole trial
just starts over again from scratch, so the same witnesses
will be called. It might be a different legal team
with a different legal strategy, especially from the prosecution side.
Speaker 3 (08:16):
But to answer your.
Speaker 4 (08:18):
Question around how common they are, how likely, it really
just comes down to whether they can get over the line.
In terms of the appeal, this case is a circumstantial case.
So what that means is there was no direct evidence
of her intention to murder the family. You know, another
case is a defense might be around identity, did the
accused actually do it, or it might be self defense.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
In this scenario, none of those irrelevant.
Speaker 4 (08:42):
It just comes down to whether she actually intended to
kill the victims. So when I say circumstantial case, it's
not like they found diary records of her saying, oh
I plan on doing this and I want to do
this to them, or it's not actually made admissions around
wanting to cause harm.
Speaker 3 (08:58):
They piece together a puzzle pie.
Speaker 4 (09:00):
So you know the fact that she didn't get significantly
ill compared to the others, that's a piece in the puzzle.
The fact that she was researching mushrooms, the fact that
the plates were different colors, the fact she lied to
police afterwards. It's called post defense conduct. So all of
those things you added together to create a case that
the prosecution says supports the only case theory being that
(09:23):
she intended to murder the victims. So overall, in the
court appeal they have to decide whether all of this
circumstantial evidence does stack up or whether something is so
flawed in the process that there needs to be a retrial.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
And that puzzle analogy you gave is actually one that
was mentioned in the trial too. But now to sort
of switch gears, what are the DPP appealing?
Speaker 3 (09:48):
So they're appealing sentence.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
So they're obviously satisfied with the conviction, but what they're
not satisfied with is, I guess the severity of the sentence.
So their legal argument is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
So from the defense perspective, if they would appeal sentence,
they would argue the sentence is manifestly excessive, it's too severe,
the prosecutors.
Speaker 3 (10:09):
Saying it's too lenient.
Speaker 4 (10:10):
So she got a non parole period of thirty three years.
That means she's eligible to be released on parole once
she's served thirty three years in custody minus the time
she's done on remand so the court always deducts time
for the period that prisoners remain in custody while the
case is on foot and is yet to be finalized.
When they're eligible for parole, it doesn't necessarily mean they
(10:33):
will come out. So the parole board still has to
consider the progress prisoners of mate in custody, and it
might be that they say, look, Nut, we still want
you to do another couple of years, and they will reassess,
so she doesn't automatically.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
Get released at that thirty three year mark.
Speaker 4 (10:49):
But what the prosecution is saying is that, well, we
still want her to be ineligible for more years, We
want her to spend more time in custody before she's eailable,
or we don't want her to be eligible at all.
We want her to do a straight life sentence, So
that's their argument. In terms of the grounds, usually what
happens is in their ridden grounds, and similar to the
(11:11):
commction process, they've got to satisfy the court that there's
enough to even be permitted to appeals, so to get leave.
In those grounds, they'll be saying that perhaps the trial
judge didn't focus on relevant factors in the sentence in consideration,
or that perhaps the judge put too much emphasis on
one factor or not the other. So, for example, for
(11:31):
the prosecutions perspective, one significant factor.
Speaker 3 (11:36):
Is that there's no remorse.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
When somebody runs a trial, it can't then be said
that they are remorseful for what happened, and that's something
that's taken into account when somebody pleads guilty and they're
actually given a reduction on sentence. So a big factor
for them is that there's no remorse. The second one
would be probably that what's aggravating in terms of the crime.
The features of the crime is that she planned it.
(11:58):
It was all pre planned and again she lied. So
if the trial judge hasn't put enough emphasis on the
lack of remorse or hasn't.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
Again put enough weight on the fact that she lied.
Speaker 4 (12:10):
For example, they might say that the sentence is too
lenient and that the judge needs to.
Speaker 3 (12:14):
Revisit those factors.
Speaker 4 (12:15):
Or it could be that the trial judge placed too
much weight on Miss Patterson's personal circumstances. So I know
that the judge really took into account the fact that
this is high profile in the media, and she was
suffering in custody more so than other prisoners because of
all the attention she was getting. Then she was essentially
put into isolation, and I can tell you the conditions
(12:37):
are just shocking when you're in isolation. So the judge
is taken into account that burden on her and that's
suffering in custody, the fact that she'd be suffering more
than others. The judge also took into account her age,
so essentially she'll.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Be an elderly woman when she is.
Speaker 4 (12:52):
Eligible to be released, and the fact she had no
prior history. So all of those factors. The prosecute might say, well,
the judge just put too much weight on factors in
her favor and needs to I guess shift things in
terms of the balance in exercise, and you know, weighing
up what's appropriate.
Speaker 1 (13:12):
So with two appeals at plate, will they be happening
at the same time or what does that look like?
Speaker 4 (13:19):
They probably will from a court resource financial perspective, they'll
probably want to run them together. So what will happen
is defense will submit their grounds on the conviction. The
prosecution will submit grounds on the sentence being lenient. But
then we'll also respond to the conviction argument and say
that the conviction stands, it was the right decision, there
(13:41):
was nothing wrong with the process or the verdict. Defense
will respond to the sentence and say the sentence is fair,
it wasn't lenient, and they'll also argue why the sentence
shouldn't be increased. So the prosecution will be argument should
be increase, Defense will be arguing that it should remain
the same. I really doubt defense will be arguing that
(14:01):
it should be decreased. I don't see any merit in that,
and I really doubt they'll do that. So it does
kind of run together because the court has to entertain
the responses as well as the original submissions. They'll also
make submissions probably on whether there needs to be retrial,
whether conviction's quashed. So there might be some grounds around
that as well, in terms of the delay already and
having this case hanging over Ms. Patterson's said, and not
(14:23):
just her head, but the victim's families, that the witnesses
that have to recount all the tragic circumstances. It might
be that the court spares them of that process potentially.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
So you touched upon Aaron's conditions in prison, Can you
talk our listeners through what it is like at Dane
Phillis Frost.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
So Dane Phyllis, it's obviously in all female prison, you
have whole range of prisoners in there in terms of
security reso. You've got women in there that are on
remand's awaiting trial. That means they haven't been proven guilty
of a crime yet, and in fact, there would be
many women in there that are actually innocent. Then you've
got women in there that have been convicted or pleaded
(15:06):
guilty of a crime, but they're considered low risks.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
So for example, it might be that.
Speaker 4 (15:10):
They've committed theft, but it didn't involve any violence or
any harm to anyone, so to speak, like it's a
financial harm, but there's no safety risk to someone mentally
or physically, and then you've got other prisons in there
that are high risks. So for example, they have been
convicted of a murder, they're considered extremely violent, or they're
emotional or cognitive or intellectual or mental health condition means
(15:35):
that they might be.
Speaker 3 (15:35):
A psychological risk to others or even to themselves.
Speaker 4 (15:38):
So some women are prone to self harming in there,
or harming others. So you've got this whole melting pot.
Whereas with the male prisons, there's a lot of different units,
a lot of different facilities that not segregate, but you know,
there's one facility that's for low risk offenders, and then
there's another facility just for people in remind that are
(16:00):
still innocent, and then there's another facility for high risk offenders.
So dan Phyllis, everyone's together. It's one being melting pot.
I can tell you that a lot of my female
clients have said that they have felt very threatened in
They're very unsafe and very vulnerable. You know, they really
are fending for themselves, trying to play the game so
they don't become bait, so to speak. You know that
(16:23):
there's the big dogs in custody and you've got to
appease them just to protect yourself. But look, there's some positives.
There's a lot of forensic case workers and psychologists in
the jails that really genuinely care about the prisoners, and
I know they work really hard to give them some
sort of therapeutic treatment and support. They've got some programs
(16:43):
in custody, like educational programs, they can actually do tape courses,
they can work in the kitchen and earn a bit
of an income, and I know some of my clients
that work in the bakery section really enjoyed. It keeps
them busy and productive. But overall it's a frightening experience.
And even one day in jail is enough to break someone.
So thirty three years, I could tell you right now,
(17:05):
her quality of life has already deteriorated, and I can't
imagine what a quality of life will be like on release.
So for those angry about the fact that she is
eligible for prole then I think it is a life sentence.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
Nonetheless, Well, thank you so much for answering all of
our questions. I just wanted to ask you, are there
any other thoughts you had about this case that you
wanted to share.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
I think just in terms of the attention it's had
by the community and the media. I mean, I think
everyone loves who'd done it, and everyone loves a mystery,
and I know in this case it's not necessarily who'd
done it, but it did trigger people's minds around what
on earth was she thinking? Or did she actually do it?
Did she mean to do it? So I think it's
(17:51):
a great thing that now the community gets more exposure
to the court system and how cases operate and what
sort of how defense and prosecution all so run their case.
I think from an educational point of view, I'm glad
to see that it's out there in the media. But
I just also want to remind people that again we're
dealing with people and where they spoke this fire. Not
(18:12):
necessarily in criminal law, someone has to be proven beyond
reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. And whilst
the jury found miss Patterson guilty here, there were holes
in the case.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
There were weaknesses.
Speaker 4 (18:24):
We didn't have a motive, which usually these sort of
matters that there is one, and some things just didn't
stuck up.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
You know.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
Again, there was no sort of financial incentive for her
to do this, or there was no hatred.
Speaker 3 (18:35):
So I think when people.
Speaker 4 (18:37):
Start getting a little bit upset around outcomes, do visit
court cases a bit more. Do follow some of these
more live recordings, because it gives you a better insight
into how the justice system works, whilse defense.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Lawyers do what we do.
Speaker 4 (18:51):
And just reminding again that people are innocent before proven guilty.
It's not the other way around. And sometimes people aren't
guilty of what's being alleged. And I think it's really
important to just show some compassion and empathy for how
scary an experience it is for someone on trial that
hasn't committed a crime.
Speaker 2 (19:11):
Thank you so much, Lauren.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
Oh, thank you so much for having me. It's been great.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Before we go, there's one other little update in Aaron's case.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
There is you and I Brook. We wrote a story
the other week about Aaron's car, that notorious red MG,
being up for sale. We found the advertisement on Facebook
marketplace and we ran our checks and balances and we
figured out that it is Eron's car.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Yes, because the description actually didn't say that it was.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
No, there was no mention at all of Erin in
that advertisement. It was put up by her power of
attorney Ali Pryor, who we have previously discussed on the podcast,
and it was listed for eighteen and a half thousand dollars.
And I'll read from the ad now price to sell
quickly telling my mg ZST Corps twenty twenty three model
(20:04):
with just twenty two thousand kilometers on the clock. Car
is an excellent condition, drives beautifully, super economical and still
feels like new, perfect little suv, stylish, reliable and cheap
to run. Only selling because of an upgrade.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
And as soon as you and I started making inquiries
about it, the ad got taken down very quickly.
Speaker 2 (20:26):
May I add, And you spoke to Miss Prior, didn't you?
Speaker 1 (20:28):
Yes, I did so. I had about a ten minute
conversation with Miss Pryor on the phone and she said
that Erin murdering three people and this is quote had
nothing to do with me selling her car. This is
another quote. She said, I have power of attorney to
sell her car if that's what I'm instructed to do.
It's a private ad selling a car.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
So just to remind our listeners, this was the car
that Erin famously spoke at the front of in the
week after the deadly lunch Brook. You were there recording
Erin as she was speaking to the media.
Speaker 1 (21:02):
Yes, I think everyone will remember that footage of her
crying crocodile tears in the front of her car.
Speaker 2 (21:09):
And it was also the same car that Aaron used
to go to the Kunwora tip on not one but
two occasions, the second time dumping the dehydrator. And we've
mentioned this before, but currently Aaron's house is restrained, which
means she can't sell it, but the car is not restrained,
so it remains one of her only other assets that's
worth selling to make a little bit of cash.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
So the appeals process is definitely happening on both sides,
so we're guaranteed to see more updates in this case.
To stay updated, go to Heraldsign dot com dot au
or watch out for future episodes.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!