September 8, 2025 • 61 mins
Mushroom cook Erin Patterson has learnt her fate, with Justice Christopher Beale sentencing the triple murderer to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years. His words were live-streamed to the public, but from the steps of the courthouse, sole survivor Ian Wilkinson had some words of his own.
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):
We've just come out of the Supreme Court of Melbourne
for Aaron Patterson sentencing for the murders of Doningale Patterson
and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Erin was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole
period of thirty three years. This means that with time served,
Erin will be eligible for parole in twenty fifty six.
If alive, she'll be in her early eighties.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Aaron had her eyes closed for the majority of the
hearing and she showed little emotion on her face.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Ian was there like he was every single day of
the trial, and he spoke outside of court. We'll bring
you what Justice Christopherville said in court today and what
Ian said outside.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I'm Brook Greebert Craig, I'm Laura Placella, and this is
the mushroom cook.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
For the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. I sentenced you
to twenty five years imprisonment for the murder of Heather Wilkinson.
I sentenced you to life imprisonment for the murder of
Gail Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment for the
murder of Don Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment.
(01:10):
All sentences are to be served concurrently. The total effective
sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole
period of thirty three years.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
We're back in the studio and you've just heard the
voice of Justice, Christopher Bill for the very first time.
He handed Aaron a sentence of life with a non
parole period of thirty three years. It was a big
day in court, Laura, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
It really was. After more than two years, Erin has
finally learned her fate.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And what does this non parole period actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So when we speak about sentences, you can think of
a maximum and a minimum. So the maximum is how
long you will spend in prison. For Erin right now,
that's life. But then a minimum can be set by
judge to sort of offer an incentive to the criminal,
to say to them, if you behave well in prison,
if you try your hardest to rehabilitate, there's something for
(02:09):
you to work towards. For Aerin, that period is thirty
three years. She's already spent nearly two years behind bars.
So in thirty one years, which roughly takes us to
two thousand and fifty six, she'll be able to lodge
that application for parole, But that doesn't mean she gets
to be freed straight away. Her application will go to
the parole board and they will decide if she deserves
(02:32):
to be freed. If they reject her application, she goes
back to prison and she will never be released.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
And I have to say, I was pretty surprised about
the thirty three years non parole period. What did you think?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, I'd say the same. I was pretty surprised too.
If we do the math, by the time she's eligible
for parole, she'll be eighty two. While we heard a
lot during the trial about how Aaron said she had
certain health issues, largely speaking, she seems to be of
okay health. So there is a chance that when this
non parole period ends, she will be alive and she
(03:05):
can lodge that application. And I couldn't help think today
of some of the other high profile murderers that have
been sentenced in Victoria and the sorts of sentences they've received.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah, how does it compare to others?
Speaker 2 (03:17):
At Dame Phyllis Frost's Center, there is a convicted terrorist
called Momenta Shoma. She's currently serving a forty eight year
sentence and her non parole period is thirty six years,
so a little bit higher than Erin's. She was convicted
of a terrorism offense, but then in prison actually attacked
another inmate, so extra jail time was added onto a sentence.
(03:38):
But when we turn to the men, we have another
triple murderer here in Victoria called Robert Farquerssen. He was
convicted of murdering his three sons by driving their car
into a dam, and very similarly, just like Erin, he
was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole period
of thirty three years, so that is very on par
But there are also murderers who have received higher non
(04:00):
parole periods. Our listeners may remember the horrific murder of
Jill mar She was raped and killed by Adrian Bailey.
He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but his non
parole period is thirty five years. Similarly to him the
murderer of Eurydice Dixon James Todd. He too was sentenced
(04:20):
to a non parole period of thirty five years. Finally,
I mentioned James Gargasaulis, the Burke Street driver. He was
found guilty of six counts of murder for his senseless
decision to drive a car at pedestrians in the heart
of Melbourne. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but
his non parole period is a whopping forty six years,
(04:40):
so you really can see that there is this range.
And Justice Bil did speak quite a lot today about
how this is a balancing act and there are many
considerations he has to take into account when coming to
a decision on sentence.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And at the end of this episode we will play
his decision in full. But Laura, what did Justice Bill
say about this case in particular?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
One of the first things he said at the top
was that he was not going to speculate about why
Aaron chose to do what she did. He then started
recounting the evidence, really going back over that narrative we've
spoken about many times previously, but along the way he
was making certain factual findings. And today he did say
that he accepted Ian's evidence that Aaron served the guest
(05:24):
meals on four gray plates and served her own on
a smaller orange plate, and he said that she did
that to ensure she did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal.
He also accepted Ian's evidence that at the conclusion of
the lunch she did falsely tell the guests that she
had been diagnosed with cancer and that she wanted their advice.
He said that her crimes demonstrated substantial premeditation and that
(05:48):
it really did seem that she had no pity for
her victims at all. He actually said to Aaron that
she could have informed the doctors that forage mushrooms were
in the meal without having to admit that she included
them deliberately. He said that we will never know whether
that sort of revelation would have made a difference. He
said her offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust, and
(06:09):
that her crimes harmed a great many people, including her
two own children, who she inflicted untold suffering upon by
robbing them of their grandparents.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So Justice Bill said damning things about Aaron. Why then
did he set a minimum?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
That's a great question, And he did walk the court
through that today, and he touched on a lot of
things that we heard in the pre sentence hearing a
fortnight ago. He said at Dame Phyllis Erin has been
given a major offender status because she's considered to be
at risk from other prisoners. She's currently in the Gordon
unit there and this is one of the most restrictive
(06:43):
areas of the prison. She spends at least twenty two
hours a day in her cell, and one of the
only people she's allowed to communicate with is the convicted
terrorist we mentioned earlier. He said that he considers Erin
a notorious prisoner and told the court that he believes
that there's a substantial chance she will be held in
this unit for years, if not decades, given that notoriety.
(07:05):
He said this was an important consideration he had to
take into account and ultimately that was the main reason
why she was given a non parole period.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Now, the prosecution and the defense wanted two different things,
and it seemed as though Justice Bill cited more with
the defense. Is that right, Yeah, he did. To remind
our listeners, the prosecution were calling for Erin to be
sentenced to life without parole, which means she would die
behind bars because she would never have an opportunity to
apply for parole. But on the other hand, the defense
(07:36):
said that she should have that opportunity. If Erin was
actually sentenced today to life without parole, it would have
been pretty historic In Australia, there has only been one
other woman sentenced to such a term, and that was
Catherine Knight in New South Wales. For context, she murdered
her partner John Price in two thousand before skinning his body,
(07:59):
decapitating him and then cooking his head with the plan
to serve that meal to his children. A judge in
her case actually described it as offending that was almost
unthinkable in a civilized society. But as we've just touched upon,
Justice Bihal didn't believe Erin deserved the same sort of sentence.
And what did Justice Bell say about Ian will Conson
(08:20):
In particular, he.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Did touch upon the victim impact statements and actually read
his words back to Erin. It was the passage where
Ian offered his forgiveness to Erin. Justice Biale said to her,
you would do well to embrace it in the manner
he suggests.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
And Ian was actually in court today, wasn't he.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, he was, and he was surrounded by family like
he has been. But again no sighting of Simon Patterson,
Erin's estranged husband.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
And there was multiple members of the public that were
also viewing the proceedings as well.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Yes, It was a packed courtroom, that's for sure. We
were all kind of crammed in in the media section.
There were some people that wanted to watch the sentence
in the courtroom for themselves, so many more people were
given the opportunity to hear directly from Justice Beale thanks
to the live stream.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yes, we could see the cameras set up behind Aaron.
Aaron didn't show a lot of emotion throughout the sentencing.
She actually had her eyes shut for majority of it.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And that was only something we could see in court.
The live stream footage was just on Justice Beal, but
there really wasn't much emotion at all from her, like
you just said, Brook. But at the same time, there
wasn't any emotion from her on the verdict, and there
wasn't much emotion either when the victims were reading out
their statements.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Now Ian actually gave a statement outside of court. This
is the first time that he has publicly spoken since
Aaron was convicted, and he thanked Victoria Police, the Office
of Public Prosecutions, and also Health Services. Here's what he said,
good morning.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
I'll not be taking any questions or making any further
comments apart from this statement. My purpose here today is
to give some well earned thanks, firstly to Victoria Police,
in particular the homicide Squad and the team led by
(10:18):
Detective Stephen Eppingstall. They made a professional, efficient and effective
investigation into what happened at the lunch. They brought to
light the truth of what happened with the death of
three good people. We're grateful for their skills that brought
this truth to light, and I'm also very grateful for
(10:42):
the kindness and compassion they showed us me and my
family throughout the long process that has brought us to
this day. They've done a wonderful job. I'd like to
extend gratitude too, to a team from the Office of
the Office of Public Prosecutions, led by Senior Counsel Nneff Rogers.
(11:09):
The court processes are a little bewildering to lay people
like me, and we're grateful for their expertise, their hard work,
and their perseverance that has secured this conviction. I'd also
like to commend them for their kindness and compassion showed
(11:32):
to us throughout this long process. They have also done
a wonderful job. We're also grateful for the staff of
the various public health services that played an important role
in dealing with the aftermath of the lunch. There are
so many services and agencies and people involved that I
(11:57):
can't start naming names, but please each one accept my
sincere gratitude for the part that you have played in
this process. We're thankful that when things go wrong there
are good people and services and systems available to help
(12:20):
us recover. I'd like to encourage all those involved to
keep turning up and serving others. Our lives and the
life of our community depends on the kindness of others.
I'd like to encourage everybody to be kind to each other. Finally,
(12:43):
I want to say thank you to the many people
from across Australia and around the world who, through their
prayers and messages of support, have encouraged us. I think
the people of the Leaning Gather and Carumborough communities in particular,
(13:04):
your thoughtfulness and care has been a great encouragement to us.
That's all I wish to say for now. Please respect
our privacy as we continue to breathe and heal. Thank
you for listening. I hope you all have a great day.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
So now, Laura, where do we go from here?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
So the clock starts running. Erin has twenty eight days
to lodge an appeal, and this could either be an
appeal against her conviction. She could argue that the jury
got it wrong and she should be given a retrial,
or she can lodge an appeal against her sentence.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
And what does an appeal look like then.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
So we'd leave the Supreme Court and go up to
the Court of Appeal and this is where a lot
of legal argument would be taking place. It would be
heard before three new judges and it would be up
to Erin's defense team to put forward grounds of appeal
that they say would justify a retrial. Those three judges
would then come back with their decision, and if they
(14:05):
agree that Erin should have a retrial for whatever reason,
we pretty much do this whole thing again. A new
jury would be impaneled and the evidence would once again
be presented to that jury. They'd then deliver their verdicts
and if it is once again a verdict of guilty,
then Erin would be sentenced for a second time.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
So we'll wait to see if the appeal process actually happens,
but for now we'll leave you with Justice Bill's sentence
just a warning it does go for about forty minutes,
and because he did deliver it live on TV, we
will not be censoring it.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Erin Patterson, after a long trial during which you gave
evidence that the poisoning of your four lunch guests on
the twenty ninth of July was an accident, the jury
found you guilty of three counts of murder and one
count of attempted murder.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
In other words, the.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Jury necessarily found that you deliberately served poison meal to
Gail and Don Patterson and Heather and Ian Wilkinson, and
that you did so intending to kill them. Only Ian
Wilkinson survived. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment,
and for attempted murder twenty five years imprisonment. Murder is
(15:19):
also a standard sentence offense, and the standard sentence offense
for murder is twenty five years imprisonment. The prosecution submits,
and your Council concedes, that your offending falls into the
worst category of offending for these offenses, and that you
should receive the maximum penalties for your crimes. I agree
(15:41):
for reasons that I will come to in due course.
The prosecution also submits that, having regard to the horrendous
nature of your crimes, I should not fix a non
parole period. In other words, the prosecution submits that you
should never have the opportunity of being being released from
prison on parole. Your council challenged this submission, relying principally
(16:07):
on the harsher than usual conditions of your imprisonment, which
both sides agree are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Whether or not to fixate non parole period is the
main dispute which I have to determine. These sentencing reasons
consists of four parts. First, the circumstances of the offenses,
(16:32):
second your circumstances, third relevant sentencing law, and fourth the
actual sentences. It is convenient at this stage to mention
one aspect of sentencing law. Where the prosecution alleges circumstances
that aggravate your offending, the prosecution must prove those circumstances
(16:54):
beyond reasonable doubt. Where the defense alleges circumstances of mitigation,
the defense must prove those circumstances on the balance of probabilities.
Just before I turned to the circumstances of your offenses,
I note that at your trial, the prosecution conceded that
(17:15):
they could not prove motive.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
As is standard. I directed the jury that the.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Prosecution did not have to prove motive, only the elements
of the offenses, and that quote, some murders occur for
no apparent reason. The motives for such murders may only
ever be known to the offenders. Clearly, the jury was
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the alleged offenses.
(17:43):
Only you know why you committed them. I will not
be speculating about that matter. I will begin my discussion
of the circumstances of your offenses with the fact that
you were familiar with the Eye Naturalist website from at
least May twenty twenty two. That is a website on
(18:04):
which people can post and view sightings of death cap mushrooms,
amongst other things. On the twenty eighth of May twenty two,
you access the I Naturalist website and navigated to its
worldwide map in relation to sightings of death cap mushrooms.
Using that map, you accessed information concerning the sighting of
(18:24):
death cap mushrooms in Morabin, a suburb of Melbourne. In
late twenty two, a dispute arose between you and your
estranged husband, Simon Patterson, regarding child support payments for your
two young children who lived with you. In December twenty two,
you referred to that dispute in your communications with a
(18:45):
Facebook messenger group with whom you shared an interest in
true crime. You were scathing in your remarks about both
Simon and his parents, Don Gale Patterson.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Amongst other things, you.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Derided your father in law's suggestion that you and Simon
get together and pray for your children, commenting quote this family,
I swear to fucking God.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
You called them quote a lost cause.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You wondered whether they had quote any capacity for self
reflection at all. You said quote fuck him, and that
you suspect, suspected the best thing you could do was
quote just to forget about all of them and live
your life. You accuse Simon of quote gaslighting you, and
(19:35):
Don and Gale of using quote weasel words. You called
Simon quote a deadbeat and wondered why Gail was not
quote horrified by his stance regarding child support. According to
your testimony a trial, and to a lesser extent, Simon's testimony,
(19:55):
the dispute over child support had resolved by early twenty
three on the eighteenth of April twenty three, one, Christine Mackenzie,
a former poison specialist, was visiting her daughter in Locke,
which is a small town about a twenty five minute
drive northwest of Lean Gathera where you lived. Miss Mackenzie
(20:18):
observed death cap mushrooms in Locke Reserve and posted details
of her observations, including photographs, on the Eye Naturalist's website.
The same day, Miss Mackenzie disposed of all the death
cap mushrooms that she could find because of the danger
she thought they posed, especially to young children. On the
morning of the twenty eighth of April twenty three, your
(20:40):
mobile phone, which was never recovered by investigators, connected to
certain cell towers, consistent with a possible visit by you
to the Lock Reserve that afternoon. You purchased a food
dehydrator in Lean Gather. Between the twenty eighth of April
and the fourth of May three, you photographed forage mushrooms
(21:03):
on the trays of your dehydrator. The images were found
by investigators on a Samsung tablet later seized from your home.
Doctor Tom May, a world renowned expert in fungi, gave
evidence at your trial that those images were quote consistent
with death cap mushrooms to a high degree of confidence.
(21:25):
On the twenty first of May twenty three, doctor May
observed death cap mushrooms in Nilsen Street, Outram. Outram is
a small town about a twenty three minute drive southwest
of Lean Gathera. Later that day, doctor May posted details
of his observations, including photographs, on the I Naturalist website.
(21:47):
On the morning of the twenty second of May twenty three,
your phone connected to certain cell towers, consistent with a
possible visit by you to Locke Reserve. Later that morning,
your phone connected to certain cell town hours, consistent with
a possible visit by you to Nilsen.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Street, Outram.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
On the twenty fourth of June twenty three, you hosted
a lunch at your Lee and Gather home, attended by
Don and Gail and your children. You had invited Simon
to that lunch, but he declined, saying in a text
message quote, Hi Erin, thank you for your kind lunch
invite together with mum and Dad. I'm sorry I'll decline
as I feel too uncomfortable about it. Between the twenty
(22:32):
eighth of June and the seventh of July twenty three,
there were a series of messages between you and Gale
in which you falsely represented that you had undergone a
needle biopsy for a lump in your arm and an MRI.
In response to a message from Gail as to how
you got on with your medical test, you messaged her
(22:54):
on the seventh of July twenty three that quote, there's
a bit to digest with everything that's come out of it.
I might talk more about it with you both when
I see you in person. On the sixteenth of July
twenty three, you attended the Sunday service at the Corumborough
Baptist Church, where Ian Wilkinson was and is the pastor.
(23:17):
After the service, you invited Gail and Don Patterson and
Heather and Ian Wilkinson to lunch at your home at
Gibson Street, Lee and Gatha on the twenty ninth of
July twenty three. Both the Pattersons and the Wilkinsons were
surprised by the invitation, as the Wilkinsons had never previously
been invited to a meal at your home. You also
(23:38):
invited Simon, telling him that you had invited his parents
and his aunt and uncle. You told him you had
some important medical news which you wanted to discuss at
the lunch, and that you did not want the children
to be present. Simon initially accepted your invitation and informed
his parents that the purpose of the love was to
(24:01):
discuss your medical issues and how to inform the children.
On the evening of the twenty eighth of July twenty three,
Simon and you exchanged messages. Simon's read quote, Sorry, I
feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, Mum, Dad,
Heather and Ian tomorrow, but I am happy to talk
(24:22):
about your health and implications of that at another time.
If you'd like to discuss on the phone, just let
me know, you replied five minutes later, quote, that's really disappointing.
I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow,
which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing,
(24:44):
and spent a small fortune on beef ive Phillip to
make beef Wellington's because I wanted it to be a
special meal, as I may not be able to host
a lunch like this again for some time. It's important
to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I
have the conversations that I need to have. I hope
you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian
(25:07):
are coming at twelve thirty. I hope to see you there.
On Saturday, the twenty ninth of July twenty three, you
served your four lunch guests individual beef Wellington's, which were
deliberately poisoned with death cap mushrooms. You gave evidence at
your trial that had Simon attended the lunch, you would
(25:29):
also have served him a beef Wellington. I accept the
evidence of Ian Wilkinson that you served your guests their
meals on four gray plates, while your individual beef Wellington
was on a smaller orangey tan colored plate, a fact
that Heather also commented on to Ian and Simon the
next day. I find that you did this to ensure
(25:52):
that you did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal. I
also accept the evidence of Ian Wilkinson that at the
conclusion of the meal, you falsely told your guests that
you had been diagnosed with cancer and sought their advice
as to whether and how you should break the news
to your children that you had a life threatening illness.
(26:16):
Not long after this conversation started, your son and his friend,
who had gone to a movie, returned home. The conversation
about cancer ceased, but not before all your lunch guests,
at Ian's suggestion, prayed for your health soon after they left.
(26:36):
Around midnight to one a m on Sunday, the thirtieth
of July twenty three, all of your lunch guests fell
seriously ill, suffering repeated vomiting and diarrhea. On Sunday morning,
Gale and Donn informed Simon of their conditions and called
an ambulance, which took them to nearby Crumborough Hospital. Simon
attended the Wilkinsons home to find that Heather and Ian
(26:59):
was similar unwell. He took them first to Corumborough Hospital,
but was redirected to Lean Gather Hospital.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
Because of limited resources.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
By way of contrast, you made a round trip of
approximately two hours on Sunday afternoon to take your son
to a flying lesson at Tiab. By the Sunday evening,
Don and Gale had been transferred to Dandenong Hospital. On
the morning of Monday, the thirty first of July twenty three,
Ian and Heather were also transferred to Dandenong Hospital. Later
(27:32):
that day, Gail and Don were transferred to the Austin Hospital,
as were Heather and Ian on Tuesday, the first of
August twenty three. All of them were experiencing advanced multiple
organ failure. Having learned from Simon on the Sunday that
your parents in law had been hospitalized, you attended Leanngather
(27:54):
Hospital on the Monday, complaining of diarrhea.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
You did not stay long.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Shortly after a doctor indicated to you that death cap
mushroom poisoning was suspected, you left, despite warnings by another
doctor and nurse that your life was in danger. You
returned over an hour and a half later. When you returned,
you showed reluctance to receive treatment for suspected death cap
(28:20):
mushroom poisoning and to organize a medical.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Assessment for your children who were at school.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Medical staff were urging you to have the children assessed
because you claimed falsely that on the Sunday night you
fed them the leftovers of the beef wellingtons with the
pastry and mushrooms scraped off. Eventually, you arranged with Simon
to collect the children and bring them to hospital. On
the Monday morning, police recovered beef wellington remains from a
(28:47):
bin outside your home, which were later found to contain
death cap mushroom toxins. On the Monday afternoon, you were
transferred to Monash Medical Center in Clayton. Simon brought the
children there. You and the children were kept in hospital
overnight for observation. At both Lee and Gatha Hospital and
(29:07):
Monash Medical Center, you were asked by various people, including
doctors and representatives of the Health Department and the Child
Protection Service, where you would source the mushrooms for the
beef wellingtons.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
You said you would purchase some fresh.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Mushrooms at Woolworth's and some dried mushrooms from an Asian grocery.
You were vague about the location of the Asian grocery,
claiming you would purchase the dried mushrooms several months before
and that the shop could have been in one of
a number of suburbs that fall within the boundaries of
the city of Monash. You denied having forage for mushrooms,
(29:42):
a lie repeated in your recorded police interview on the
fifth of August twenty three. At your trial, you maintained
the story about having sourced some of the mushrooms from
an Asian grocery, but testified that in May and June
of twenty three you had foraged for edible mushrooms in
various places, including the Corumborough Botanical Gardens. You testified that
(30:06):
you had dehydrated these mushrooms and put them in a
container which contained the dried mushrooms from the Asian Grocery,
and that you used the dried mushrooms in that container
along with the fresh mushrooms from Woolworths in the beef Wellingtons.
You testified that in this way, death cap mushrooms must
(30:27):
have accidentally found their way into the meals served to
your lunch guests. The jury rejected this elaborate explanation. They
found that you deliberately poisoned the meals of your lunch guess.
I am satisfied that your vague story about the Asian
grocery was a lie. When you realized that their lie
(30:48):
would not work because death cap mushrooms cannot be cultivated
commercially and there were no other reports of people falling
ill from mushrooms purchased at Asian groceries, you changed tack.
You concocted the story you told the jury about foraged
mushrooms ending up in the container with the Asian grocery
(31:08):
mushrooms and then accidentally ending up in the beef wellingtons.
On the afternoon of Tuesday, the first of August twenty three,
you and the children were discharged from Monash Hospital. On
the morning of the second of August twenty three, you
disposed of your dehydrator at a local tip, the Kunwara
(31:29):
transfer station.
Speaker 5 (31:31):
On the fourth of August.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Twenty three, investigators recovered your dehydrator from the tip. Forensic
examination revealed that the dehydrator contained traces of death cap mushrooms.
That same day, fourth of August twenty three, Heather Wilkinson,
aged sixty six, and Gale Patterson, aged seventy, died from
(31:53):
Deathcap mushroom poisoning, and Don Patterson, who was desperately ill,
was given a liver transplant. On the fifth of August
twenty three, the police executed a search warrant at your home.
You handed over a dummy phone. It was not the
phone that you had been using throughout most of twenty three.
The phone which on the twenty eighth of April twenty
(32:14):
three had connected to certain cell towers indicating a possible
visit to Locke, and which on the twenty second of
May twenty three, had connected to certain cell towers, indicating
possible visits to Locke and Outram. In your recorded interview
following the search, you denied having foraged for mushrooms and
(32:34):
denied owning a dehydrator. Late on the fifth of August
twenty three, Don Patterson, aged seventy, died from death cap
mushroom poisoning. Ian Wilkinson very nearly died, but gradually his
condition improved. On the twenty first of August twenty three,
he was discharged from the intensive care unit to a
(32:56):
ward at the Austin Hospital. On the eleventh of September
twenty three, he was moved to the Hardelberg Repatriation Hospital.
On the twenty first of September twenty three, he was
discharged home. He has not fully recovered. He has reduced
kidney function, ongoing respiratory issues, and reduced energy. On the
(33:18):
second of November twenty three, the police executed another search
warrant at your home, seizing more electrical devices. You were
arrested and charged. You have been in custody ever since.
Let me now summarize the aggravating circumstances of your offending.
(33:39):
Your offending which resulted in the death of three people
and near death of another, involved substantial premeditation. I am
satisfied that by the sixteenth of July twenty three, when
you unusually invited Simon, his parents, and his aunt and
uncle to a lunch without the children to discuss your
(34:00):
on existent medical issues, you did so with the intention
of killing them all. The dehydrator, which you purchased in
late twenty three late April twenty three enabled you to
preserve death cap mushrooms, which you put into the individual
beef Wellington's served to your guests.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
Whether those death.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Cap mushrooms came from Locke on the twenty eighth of
April twenty three, or from Locke or Outram on the
twenty second of May twenty three, or from another location
in May or June of twenty three, as you suggested
in your testimony, is in my view of no great moment.
After learning from Simon on Sunday the thirtieth of July
(34:43):
twenty three, that some or all of your lunch guests
had been hospitalized, you showed no pity for your victims.
Instead of informing those treating the Pattersons and Wilkinsons that
you had used forage mushrooms, which you could have done
without having to admit that you had deliberately poisoned their meals.
(35:04):
You repeatedly denied foraging, insisting that the mushrooms for the
beef wellingtons were sourced solely from Woolworth's.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
And an Asian grocery.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
We will never know whether revealing the use of foraged
mushrooms would have made a difference. But the administration of
the drug silibinin, which is a specific antidote for death
cap mushroom poisoning, was not commenced on the thirtieth of
July twenty three because at that stage the evidence regarding
the type of toxin was inconclusive. Similarly, the administration of
(35:38):
NAC to preserve the victim's livers from toxins was not
commenced until almost midnight on the thirtieth of July twenty
three for Don Patterson and on the thirty first of
July twenty three for the others. The prosecution submitted that
I should infer from your pitiless behavior that your intention
to kill was ongoing, and that this constitutes an additional
(36:02):
aggravating circumstance.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I accept that submission. As the Wilkinson's.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Daughter Ruth Dubois remarked in her victim impact statement, you
quote followed through on your lethal plan. Your lunch guests
each suffered severe gastro intestinal illness on the Sunday and
Monday prior to being sedated and mechanically ventilated. Their suffering
(36:29):
was protracted, and Ian Wilkins suffers ongoing health issues.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
This aggravates your offending.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
The prosecution submitted that you must have anticipated that your
victims would suffer in the way they did. I am
satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt, it is implausible that
you would have selected death cap mushrooms without ascertaining how
they would work upon your victims.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Further, the devastating.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Impact of your crimes is not limited to your direct victims.
Your crimes have harmed a great many people. I will
expand on this aggravating circumstance. When I turned to the
victim impact statements. In addition to denying the use of
foraged mushrooms, you engaged in an elaborate cover up of
(37:20):
your guilt. I find that you disposed of the four
grade plates on which you served the poison beef wellingtons
you falsely made out that you had fed your children
left over beef Wellington's, with the pastry and mushrooms scraped off.
You feigned illness. You disposed of the dehydrator soon after
you were released from a hospital. You maintained the vague
(37:40):
story about sourcing dried mushrooms at an Asian grocery, and
had the gall to tell police in your recorded police
interview that you had been.
Speaker 5 (37:48):
Very, very helpful to the Health department in its investigation
of the incident.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
You disposed of your phone and provided police with a
dummy farm. You lied to the police in your recorded
police interview about various matters. Finally, and most importantly, your
offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust. Your victims were
all your relatives by marriage. More than that, they had
(38:14):
all been good to you and your children over many years,
as you acknowledged in your testimony. Not only did you
cut short three lives and cause lasting damage to Ian
Wilkinson's health, thereby devastating the extended Patterson and Wilkinson families,
you inflicted untold suffering on your own children, whom you
(38:35):
robbed of their beloved grandparents. The victim impacts statements reveal
the immense and ongoing anguish suffered by your many victims,
direct and indirect. No summary could do justice to the
individual and collective power of those statements. It is not
(38:58):
my intention here to say summarize or refer to every statement,
but rather to highlight some key aspects. Four generations of
the extended Pattison and Wilkinson families have been traumatized by
your crimes, not to mention their friends. Don's mother, Martha Patterson,
(39:19):
who is aged one hundred, made a victim impact statement.
In it, she prayed for God's healing for her family.
Gail and Heather's father, now deceased, also reached his one
hundredth birthday in twenty twenty four, but tragically, only one
of his three daughters, Lynn Young, whose statement was read
(39:41):
to the court, was alive to mark that milestone with him.
And there are many references in the statements to the
trauma experienced by the Patterson and Wilkinson grandchildren. Many of
your adult victims struggled not only with the loss of
their loved ones and the terrible way they died, but
with them distress, even guilt at their own seeming inability
(40:03):
to ease the suffering of those close to them.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
They keenly feel their limitations, and.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
In particular the impossibility of shielding the youngest from the
incessant discussion of the case in the media, online, in
public spaces, even in the school yard. Many also struggle
to cope with work and studies, and many have experienced
additional financial burdens. There is, of course, great anger at
(40:30):
the callousness of your actions. To take just one example,
Ian Wilkinson's sister Dorothy Dicker, questions, quote how anyone could
sit there and watch those four kind and caring people
eat that meal. Your failure to exhibit any remorse pours
salt into all the victim's wounds. The children of your
(40:55):
direct victims speak of the distress of watching their parents
suffer in hospital. For example, Donngale's son Matthew remarks, quote
watching my parents suffer in hospital from severe poisoning called shock,
grief and lasting trauma. Ian and Heather's son David, remembers
his mother being quote desperate for water, which he was
(41:17):
not allowed by medical staff, and saying her quote insides
were burning. David also mentions his father's tortured experience quote
black lips, gaunt, face, pained and serious expression. At your
plea hearing, Ian Wilkinson memorably read his victim impact statement
(41:41):
to the court. Amongst other things, he humbly expressed his
great admiration and love for his wife, Heather, and his
concern for others, even you. He offered you forgiveness for
what you did to him. Quote in regards to the
(42:04):
many harms done to me, I make an offer of
forgiveness to Erin. I say harms done to me Advisedly,
I have no power or responsibility to forgive harms done
to others. However, I encourage Erin to receive my offer
of forgiveness for those harms done to me, with full
confession and repentance. I bear her no ill will. That
(42:31):
offer of forgiveness presents you with an opportunity. You would
do well to embrace it in the manner he suggests.
In commenting on the unprecedented coverage of your case, Ian
Wilkinson also made this point quote, It's one of the
(42:56):
distressing shortcoms shortcomings of our society, that so much attention
is showered on those who do evil.
Speaker 5 (43:04):
And so little on those who do good.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
Your lunch guests undoubtedly belonged to that company of people
among us who do good.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
The victim impact.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
Statements make it clear that each one of them, over
many years, gave of themselves generously and made lasting contributions
to many many lives, and in Ian's case, continues.
Speaker 5 (43:31):
To make.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
All of them, inspired by their Christian faith, were deeply
invested not only in their families but in their wider communities,
as the statements from members of the Currumborough Baptist Church attest.
A word that is used again and again in the
statements to describe your crimes is quote senseless. Also surfaces
(44:01):
in the statements is hope and gratitude for the care
shown by others. Don and Gale's daughter Anna Terrington writes quote,
we have to say goodbye.
Speaker 5 (44:14):
For now to Mum and Dad and Heather.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Don's brother Colin writes quote, As Christians, they were people
of hope and sharing that hope. My loss is not
one marked by despair. Ruth Dubais expresses her great appreciation
for the efforts made and compassion shown by the medical teams.
Simon Patterson gives thanks quote for the incredibly strong, gentle
(44:43):
patient and caring support from friends, family, schools, our own
church congregation, the wider church, colleagues, work clients, neighbors, police,
government officers, and our professional counselors. We have experienced love
in a special.
Speaker 5 (45:00):
Away since the murders.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
I will conclude my account of key aspects of the
victim impact statements with what Donngale's son Matthew had to.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
Say about your betrayal of trust. Quote.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Erin was embraced as part of the Patterson family. She
was welcome and treated with genuine love and respect in
a way she did not appear to experience from her
own family. Her actions represent a profound and devastating betrayal
of the trust and love extended to her. Having regard
(45:37):
to the aggravating circumstances of your offending and the victim
impact statements, I have no hesitation in finding that your
offending falls into the worst category for the offenses of
murder and attempted murder, as the case law makes clear.
The fact that it is possible to imagine even worse
instances of such offenses does not refute that categorization. The
(46:00):
gravity of your offending warrants the imposition of the maximum
penalties for your crimes. I turned then to your circumstances.
The information I was provided about your personal history was minimal.
Your council simply relied on the personal history you provided
in your trial testimony. There were no psychiatric or psychological reports, provided,
(46:24):
no references from character witnesses. No doubt that approach to
your plea hearing was based on your instructions. But it
means the account of your personal history that I am
about to give is limited. You were born in Adelaide
on the thirtieth September nineteen seventy four, making you forty
eight years old at the time of your offending and
(46:46):
fifty now. Your maiden name was Scutter. In nineteen seventy seven,
your family relocated to Melbourne, residing in Hampton.
Speaker 5 (46:54):
In two thousand and four, you and.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Simon Patterson met whilst you were both employed at Monash
City Council. Simon told the jury that he was working
there as a civil engineer, and you were the RSPCA's
representative on the council. By two thousand and five, you
and Simon were romantically involved. In two thousand and six,
your grandmother died, leaving you a substantial inheritance moneys from
(47:18):
her estate were distributed between two thousand and seven and
two thousand and fifteen. During those years, you would be
generous with your money to Simon's siblings, providing large, no
interest loans to them and their spouses so that they
could purchase their own homes. On the second of June
two thousand and seven, you and Simon married. You told
(47:39):
the jury that your parents did not attend the wedding
they were holidaying in Russia. Soon after your marriage, you
and Simon traveled around Australia and overseas for a few
months before settling in Perth. Simon got a job working
for an inner city Ship council in two thousand and nine,
when you were thirty five four. Your son was born
(48:02):
in April two thousand and nine. You and Simon set
off with the baby to explore the top end of Australia.
You reached Townsville in November two thousand and nine, at
which point you parted company. You flew back to Perth,
Simon drove back with the baby. You rented a cottage
for you and the baby. Simon rented an onsite caravan
close by. This was the first of many comparatively short
(48:25):
term separations. You reunited by the end of January twenty
and ten. In twenty eleven, your father died. In that year,
you also opened a second hand bookshop in Pedmington, Western Australia.
In twenty thirteen, when you were pregnant, you and Simon
returned to Victoria with your son to live closer to
(48:45):
Simon's family. In twenty fourteen, your daughter was born. In
twenty fifteen, you and Simon separated permanently. In two thousand
and nineteen, your mother died, leaving you an inheritance. In
June twenty two, you and your children moved into a
newly constructed home at eighty four Gibson, Streatley and Gathera,
(49:08):
the home at which you served the fatal lunch on
the twenty ninth of July twenty three. You have no
relevant criminal history. You maintain your innocence. In other words,
there is no evidence of remorse. I turn now to
the conditions of your imprisonment. As mentioned, you have been
in custody since the second of November twenty three. There
(49:31):
were two affidavits tended relating to your conditions of imprisonment.
The first was sworn.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
By a solicitor who acts for you and was based
largely on your instructions.
Speaker 3 (49:41):
The second affidavit was sworn by Jennifer Hoskin, Assistant Commissioner,
Sentenced Management Division at Corrections Victoria, who also testified at
your plea hearing. Miss Hoskins evidence included confirmation of the
following matters. You have a quote Maximum Security you rating
and quote major offender status. Because of the nature of
(50:06):
your crimes and your notoriety, you have been assessed as
being at significant risk from other prisoners. You have not
been assessed as posing a risk to other prisoners. You
have spent approximately sixteen months of your twenty two months
at Dame Phillis Frost Center in a management unit called
(50:26):
the Gordon Unit, and the rest of the time in
a protection unit called the Murray Unit. A management unit
is more restrictive than a protection unit. You have been
in the Gordon Unit continuously for the last fifteen months.
The Gordon unit has about twenty cells. You are not
permitted to mix with the other women in the Gordon Unit.
(50:50):
You have spent at least twenty two hours in your
cell every day that you have been in the Gordon Unit.
There have been sixteen days since November twenty four where
because of lockdowns, you have been confined to your cell
for the entire twenty four hours per day. The maximum
period that a prisoner in the Gordon Unit could have
(51:12):
out of their cell on any given day is four hours,
but quote that wouldn't happen very often. Your meals and
medicine are currently delivered through a flap in your cell door.
There is a small concrete yard approximately two meters by
one point five meters which adjoins your cell, which with permission,
(51:34):
you may access for fresh air. If prisoners are using
the larger exercise yard which abuts your exercise yard, you
may not use your small yard. During your time in
the Gordon Unit, you have barely had any contact with
other individuals. Permission is required for you to communicate with
(51:57):
any other prisoner, which, according to your council, is complicated
by the fact that you are not informed of the
identities of the other prisoners in the Gordon Unit. You
currently have approval to communicate with one other prisoner in
the Gordon Unit through a wire mesh when the two
of you are permitted to use your respective adjoining exercise yards.
(52:20):
That under other prisoner is undergoing a lengthy sentence for
terrorism offenses and has attacked other prisoners. You did not
ask to communicate with that person and have not communicated
with her. The suggestion that you should communicate with her
was made by a corrections officer. There is an intercom
(52:41):
in your cell, which, if permission is granted, you may
use to communicate with one other prisoner in the unit
at a time, but you have not done so. In
order to attend any other part of the prison, for example,
the visitors center or the library, you are driven there
escorted by two corrections officers. While theoretically prisoners in the
(53:03):
Gordon Unit are able to access the prison library twice
per week for twenty minutes at a time, you have
not been able to do so because of staff shortages
and a rule that you may not access the library
if another is doing so. Consequently, you have only been
able to access the library a handful of times during
your time in the Gordon Unit. United Nations guidelines known
(53:28):
as the Bangkok Rules provide that a prisoner should not
be in separation for more than fifteen days at a time,
but you have now been in separation continuously for fifteen months.
There are two prisoners in the Gordon Unit who have
been there in excess of three years, and whilst the
(53:49):
primary principle in the placement of prisoners is to manage
and place them in the least restrictive environment necessary to
ensure the safety and security of the individual prisoner and
others prisoners, the least restrictive environment can be very restrictive
as for your future conditions of imprisonment, Whilst your placement
(54:12):
in the.
Speaker 5 (54:12):
Gordon Unit is reviewed.
Speaker 3 (54:13):
Monthly, Miss Hoskin was unable to say whether you would
ever be moved from the Gordon Unit. I infer that,
given the unprecedented media coverage of your case and the books,
documentaries and TV series about you, which are all in
the pipeline, you are likely to remain remain a notorious
(54:35):
prisoner for many years to come, and as such remain
at significant risks from other prisoners. I turn then to
a number of relevant sentencing principles and rules. Section five
of the Sentencing Act nineteen ninety one declares that the
only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment,
(54:58):
specific and general de terrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of
the community. I have had regard to all of these
sentencing purposes in formulating my sentences, but rehabilitation has taken
a back seat because of the gravity of your offending.
(55:19):
Other provisions of the Sentencing Act that are of particular
relevance to your case are as follows. Under section six
A to six F, you fall to be sentenced as
a serious violent offender in respect of the three murders,
meaning that the protection of the community is the principal
purpose for which the sentences on those counts must be imposed.
(55:41):
Under section six F, your status as a serious violent
offender must be entered in the court records. Section eleven
one provides relevantly that if a court sentences an offender
to be imprisonment for the term of her natural life,
the court must, as part of the sentence, fix a
period during which the offender is not eligible to be
(56:02):
released on parole, unless it considers that the nature of
the offense makes the fixing of such a period inappropriate.
Section eleven a, for a, provides that where an offender
is sentenced to life imprisonment, the sentence must fix a
non parole period of at least thirty years, unless it
(56:24):
is not in the interests of justice to do so.
Is it inappropriate to fix a non parole period. Would
fixing a non parole period be contrary to the interests
of justice? As mentioned above, This is the main dispute
that I have to determine sentence in case law establishes that,
(56:48):
as a general rule, harsher than normal conditions of imprisonment
will warrant mitigation of penalty. There is nothing about your
conduct whilst in custody which might cast doubt on the
application of that general rule. As Miss Hosking indicated, you
are in a management unit to protect you from other prisoners,
(57:11):
not vice versa, nor do you have any relevant criminal history.
In their written submissions, the prosecution conceded that your conditions
of imprisonment are more burdensome than for a mainstream prisoner,
and that they are likely to remain so for the
foreseeable future. The prosecution submitted that this is a quote
(57:34):
relevant consideration for sentence. In oral submissions, the prosecution conceded
that this consideration was not just relevant, but quote important
and quote weighty. While still pressing for life imprisonment with
no possibility of parole, you have effectively been held in
(57:59):
con tenuous solitary confinement for the last fifteen months, and
at the very least, there is a substantial chance that,
for your protection, you will continue to be held in
solitary confinement for years to come. The Court of Appeal
in yeat against the King referred without criticism to the
(58:20):
observation that quote the adverse health effects of solitary confinement
are well established. I note too that Miss Hosking stated
at the plea hearing that quote being separated has negative
outcomes for people.
Speaker 5 (58:37):
We're very aware of that.
Speaker 3 (58:41):
The harsh prison conditions that you have experienced already and
the likely prospect of solitary confinement for the foreseeable future
are important and weighty considerations which should count for something
in the sentencing exercise. In my view, the only scope
for making them count is by the fixing of a
(59:03):
non parole period. In opposing the imposition of a non
parole period, the prosecution relied on the coin against Colston,
where the offender was sentenced to life imprisonment without a
non parole period for the savage murders of three people.
But that case makes clear that quote where there is
(59:24):
a substantial factor pointing towards clemency. As I consider your
present and likely future conditions of imprisonment to be The
fixing of a non parole period may be appropriate, even
for an offender who has committed multiple murders. Fixing a
(59:44):
non parole period is not to undervalue the horrendous nature
of your offending. Your total effective sentence will be life imprisonment,
and the period during which you will be ineligible for
parole will be a very substantial one. Please stand for
(01:00:08):
the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. I sentence you to
twenty five years imprisonment. For the murder of Heather Wilkinson.
I sentence you to life imprisonment. For the murder of
Gail Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment for the
murder of Don Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment.
(01:00:28):
All sentences are to be served concurrently. The total effective
sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole
period of thirty three years. I declare that you have
served six hundred and seventy six days by way of
pre sentenced attention.
Speaker 5 (01:00:49):
Finally, and by consent, I make the.
Speaker 3 (01:00:53):
Disposal order sought by the prosecution. Would you please remove
miss Patterson.
Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
So that was the sentence in full keep an eye
out for more episodes to come.
Speaker 2 (01:01:06):
Until next time, Brook
We've just come out of the Supreme Court of Melbourne
for Aaron Patterson sentencing for the murders of Doningale Patterson
and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.
Speaker 2 (00:11):
Erin was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole
period of thirty three years. This means that with time served,
Erin will be eligible for parole in twenty fifty six.
If alive, she'll be in her early eighties.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
Aaron had her eyes closed for the majority of the
hearing and she showed little emotion on her face.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Ian was there like he was every single day of
the trial, and he spoke outside of court. We'll bring
you what Justice Christopherville said in court today and what
Ian said outside.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I'm Brook Greebert Craig, I'm Laura Placella, and this is
the mushroom cook.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
For the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. I sentenced you
to twenty five years imprisonment for the murder of Heather Wilkinson.
I sentenced you to life imprisonment for the murder of
Gail Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment for the
murder of Don Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment.
(01:10):
All sentences are to be served concurrently. The total effective
sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole
period of thirty three years.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
We're back in the studio and you've just heard the
voice of Justice, Christopher Bill for the very first time.
He handed Aaron a sentence of life with a non
parole period of thirty three years. It was a big
day in court, Laura, wasn't it.
Speaker 2 (01:39):
It really was. After more than two years, Erin has
finally learned her fate.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And what does this non parole period actually mean?
Speaker 2 (01:47):
So when we speak about sentences, you can think of
a maximum and a minimum. So the maximum is how
long you will spend in prison. For Erin right now,
that's life. But then a minimum can be set by
judge to sort of offer an incentive to the criminal,
to say to them, if you behave well in prison,
if you try your hardest to rehabilitate, there's something for
(02:09):
you to work towards. For Aerin, that period is thirty
three years. She's already spent nearly two years behind bars.
So in thirty one years, which roughly takes us to
two thousand and fifty six, she'll be able to lodge
that application for parole, But that doesn't mean she gets
to be freed straight away. Her application will go to
the parole board and they will decide if she deserves
(02:32):
to be freed. If they reject her application, she goes
back to prison and she will never be released.
Speaker 1 (02:38):
And I have to say, I was pretty surprised about
the thirty three years non parole period. What did you think?
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Yeah, I'd say the same. I was pretty surprised too.
If we do the math, by the time she's eligible
for parole, she'll be eighty two. While we heard a
lot during the trial about how Aaron said she had
certain health issues, largely speaking, she seems to be of
okay health. So there is a chance that when this
non parole period ends, she will be alive and she
(03:05):
can lodge that application. And I couldn't help think today
of some of the other high profile murderers that have
been sentenced in Victoria and the sorts of sentences they've received.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah, how does it compare to others?
Speaker 2 (03:17):
At Dame Phyllis Frost's Center, there is a convicted terrorist
called Momenta Shoma. She's currently serving a forty eight year
sentence and her non parole period is thirty six years,
so a little bit higher than Erin's. She was convicted
of a terrorism offense, but then in prison actually attacked
another inmate, so extra jail time was added onto a sentence.
(03:38):
But when we turn to the men, we have another
triple murderer here in Victoria called Robert Farquerssen. He was
convicted of murdering his three sons by driving their car
into a dam, and very similarly, just like Erin, he
was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole period
of thirty three years, so that is very on par
But there are also murderers who have received higher non
(04:00):
parole periods. Our listeners may remember the horrific murder of
Jill mar She was raped and killed by Adrian Bailey.
He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but his non
parole period is thirty five years. Similarly to him the
murderer of Eurydice Dixon James Todd. He too was sentenced
(04:20):
to a non parole period of thirty five years. Finally,
I mentioned James Gargasaulis, the Burke Street driver. He was
found guilty of six counts of murder for his senseless
decision to drive a car at pedestrians in the heart
of Melbourne. He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but
his non parole period is a whopping forty six years,
(04:40):
so you really can see that there is this range.
And Justice Bil did speak quite a lot today about
how this is a balancing act and there are many
considerations he has to take into account when coming to
a decision on sentence.
Speaker 1 (04:53):
And at the end of this episode we will play
his decision in full. But Laura, what did Justice Bill
say about this case in particular?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
One of the first things he said at the top
was that he was not going to speculate about why
Aaron chose to do what she did. He then started
recounting the evidence, really going back over that narrative we've
spoken about many times previously, but along the way he
was making certain factual findings. And today he did say
that he accepted Ian's evidence that Aaron served the guest
(05:24):
meals on four gray plates and served her own on
a smaller orange plate, and he said that she did
that to ensure she did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal.
He also accepted Ian's evidence that at the conclusion of
the lunch she did falsely tell the guests that she
had been diagnosed with cancer and that she wanted their advice.
He said that her crimes demonstrated substantial premeditation and that
(05:48):
it really did seem that she had no pity for
her victims at all. He actually said to Aaron that
she could have informed the doctors that forage mushrooms were
in the meal without having to admit that she included
them deliberately. He said that we will never know whether
that sort of revelation would have made a difference. He
said her offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust, and
(06:09):
that her crimes harmed a great many people, including her
two own children, who she inflicted untold suffering upon by
robbing them of their grandparents.
Speaker 1 (06:18):
So Justice Bill said damning things about Aaron. Why then
did he set a minimum?
Speaker 2 (06:23):
That's a great question, And he did walk the court
through that today, and he touched on a lot of
things that we heard in the pre sentence hearing a
fortnight ago. He said at Dame Phyllis Erin has been
given a major offender status because she's considered to be
at risk from other prisoners. She's currently in the Gordon
unit there and this is one of the most restrictive
(06:43):
areas of the prison. She spends at least twenty two
hours a day in her cell, and one of the
only people she's allowed to communicate with is the convicted
terrorist we mentioned earlier. He said that he considers Erin
a notorious prisoner and told the court that he believes
that there's a substantial chance she will be held in
this unit for years, if not decades, given that notoriety.
(07:05):
He said this was an important consideration he had to
take into account and ultimately that was the main reason
why she was given a non parole period.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Now, the prosecution and the defense wanted two different things,
and it seemed as though Justice Bill cited more with
the defense. Is that right, Yeah, he did. To remind
our listeners, the prosecution were calling for Erin to be
sentenced to life without parole, which means she would die
behind bars because she would never have an opportunity to
apply for parole. But on the other hand, the defense
(07:36):
said that she should have that opportunity. If Erin was
actually sentenced today to life without parole, it would have
been pretty historic In Australia, there has only been one
other woman sentenced to such a term, and that was
Catherine Knight in New South Wales. For context, she murdered
her partner John Price in two thousand before skinning his body,
(07:59):
decapitating him and then cooking his head with the plan
to serve that meal to his children. A judge in
her case actually described it as offending that was almost
unthinkable in a civilized society. But as we've just touched upon,
Justice Bihal didn't believe Erin deserved the same sort of sentence.
And what did Justice Bell say about Ian will Conson
(08:20):
In particular, he.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Did touch upon the victim impact statements and actually read
his words back to Erin. It was the passage where
Ian offered his forgiveness to Erin. Justice Biale said to her,
you would do well to embrace it in the manner
he suggests.
Speaker 1 (08:35):
And Ian was actually in court today, wasn't he.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
Yeah, he was, and he was surrounded by family like
he has been. But again no sighting of Simon Patterson,
Erin's estranged husband.
Speaker 1 (08:45):
And there was multiple members of the public that were
also viewing the proceedings as well.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
Yes, It was a packed courtroom, that's for sure. We
were all kind of crammed in in the media section.
There were some people that wanted to watch the sentence
in the courtroom for themselves, so many more people were
given the opportunity to hear directly from Justice Beale thanks
to the live stream.
Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yes, we could see the cameras set up behind Aaron.
Aaron didn't show a lot of emotion throughout the sentencing.
She actually had her eyes shut for majority of it.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And that was only something we could see in court.
The live stream footage was just on Justice Beal, but
there really wasn't much emotion at all from her, like
you just said, Brook. But at the same time, there
wasn't any emotion from her on the verdict, and there
wasn't much emotion either when the victims were reading out
their statements.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
Now Ian actually gave a statement outside of court. This
is the first time that he has publicly spoken since
Aaron was convicted, and he thanked Victoria Police, the Office
of Public Prosecutions, and also Health Services. Here's what he said,
good morning.
Speaker 4 (09:56):
I'll not be taking any questions or making any further
comments apart from this statement. My purpose here today is
to give some well earned thanks, firstly to Victoria Police,
in particular the homicide Squad and the team led by
(10:18):
Detective Stephen Eppingstall. They made a professional, efficient and effective
investigation into what happened at the lunch. They brought to
light the truth of what happened with the death of
three good people. We're grateful for their skills that brought
this truth to light, and I'm also very grateful for
(10:42):
the kindness and compassion they showed us me and my
family throughout the long process that has brought us to
this day. They've done a wonderful job. I'd like to
extend gratitude too, to a team from the Office of
the Office of Public Prosecutions, led by Senior Counsel Nneff Rogers.
(11:09):
The court processes are a little bewildering to lay people
like me, and we're grateful for their expertise, their hard work,
and their perseverance that has secured this conviction. I'd also
like to commend them for their kindness and compassion showed
(11:32):
to us throughout this long process. They have also done
a wonderful job. We're also grateful for the staff of
the various public health services that played an important role
in dealing with the aftermath of the lunch. There are
so many services and agencies and people involved that I
(11:57):
can't start naming names, but please each one accept my
sincere gratitude for the part that you have played in
this process. We're thankful that when things go wrong there
are good people and services and systems available to help
(12:20):
us recover. I'd like to encourage all those involved to
keep turning up and serving others. Our lives and the
life of our community depends on the kindness of others.
I'd like to encourage everybody to be kind to each other. Finally,
(12:43):
I want to say thank you to the many people
from across Australia and around the world who, through their
prayers and messages of support, have encouraged us. I think
the people of the Leaning Gather and Carumborough communities in particular,
(13:04):
your thoughtfulness and care has been a great encouragement to us.
That's all I wish to say for now. Please respect
our privacy as we continue to breathe and heal. Thank
you for listening. I hope you all have a great day.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
So now, Laura, where do we go from here?
Speaker 2 (13:26):
So the clock starts running. Erin has twenty eight days
to lodge an appeal, and this could either be an
appeal against her conviction. She could argue that the jury
got it wrong and she should be given a retrial,
or she can lodge an appeal against her sentence.
Speaker 1 (13:42):
And what does an appeal look like then.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
So we'd leave the Supreme Court and go up to
the Court of Appeal and this is where a lot
of legal argument would be taking place. It would be
heard before three new judges and it would be up
to Erin's defense team to put forward grounds of appeal
that they say would justify a retrial. Those three judges
would then come back with their decision, and if they
(14:05):
agree that Erin should have a retrial for whatever reason,
we pretty much do this whole thing again. A new
jury would be impaneled and the evidence would once again
be presented to that jury. They'd then deliver their verdicts
and if it is once again a verdict of guilty,
then Erin would be sentenced for a second time.
Speaker 1 (14:24):
So we'll wait to see if the appeal process actually happens,
but for now we'll leave you with Justice Bill's sentence
just a warning it does go for about forty minutes,
and because he did deliver it live on TV, we
will not be censoring it.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
Erin Patterson, after a long trial during which you gave
evidence that the poisoning of your four lunch guests on
the twenty ninth of July was an accident, the jury
found you guilty of three counts of murder and one
count of attempted murder.
Speaker 5 (14:54):
In other words, the.
Speaker 3 (14:55):
Jury necessarily found that you deliberately served poison meal to
Gail and Don Patterson and Heather and Ian Wilkinson, and
that you did so intending to kill them. Only Ian
Wilkinson survived. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment,
and for attempted murder twenty five years imprisonment. Murder is
(15:19):
also a standard sentence offense, and the standard sentence offense
for murder is twenty five years imprisonment. The prosecution submits,
and your Council concedes, that your offending falls into the
worst category of offending for these offenses, and that you
should receive the maximum penalties for your crimes. I agree
(15:41):
for reasons that I will come to in due course.
The prosecution also submits that, having regard to the horrendous
nature of your crimes, I should not fix a non
parole period. In other words, the prosecution submits that you
should never have the opportunity of being being released from
prison on parole. Your council challenged this submission, relying principally
(16:07):
on the harsher than usual conditions of your imprisonment, which
both sides agree are likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Whether or not to fixate non parole period is the
main dispute which I have to determine. These sentencing reasons
consists of four parts. First, the circumstances of the offenses,
(16:32):
second your circumstances, third relevant sentencing law, and fourth the
actual sentences. It is convenient at this stage to mention
one aspect of sentencing law. Where the prosecution alleges circumstances
that aggravate your offending, the prosecution must prove those circumstances
(16:54):
beyond reasonable doubt. Where the defense alleges circumstances of mitigation,
the defense must prove those circumstances on the balance of probabilities.
Just before I turned to the circumstances of your offenses,
I note that at your trial, the prosecution conceded that
(17:15):
they could not prove motive.
Speaker 5 (17:19):
As is standard. I directed the jury that the.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Prosecution did not have to prove motive, only the elements
of the offenses, and that quote, some murders occur for
no apparent reason. The motives for such murders may only
ever be known to the offenders. Clearly, the jury was
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the alleged offenses.
(17:43):
Only you know why you committed them. I will not
be speculating about that matter. I will begin my discussion
of the circumstances of your offenses with the fact that
you were familiar with the Eye Naturalist website from at
least May twenty twenty two. That is a website on
(18:04):
which people can post and view sightings of death cap mushrooms,
amongst other things. On the twenty eighth of May twenty two,
you access the I Naturalist website and navigated to its
worldwide map in relation to sightings of death cap mushrooms.
Using that map, you accessed information concerning the sighting of
(18:24):
death cap mushrooms in Morabin, a suburb of Melbourne. In
late twenty two, a dispute arose between you and your
estranged husband, Simon Patterson, regarding child support payments for your
two young children who lived with you. In December twenty two,
you referred to that dispute in your communications with a
(18:45):
Facebook messenger group with whom you shared an interest in
true crime. You were scathing in your remarks about both
Simon and his parents, Don Gale Patterson.
Speaker 5 (18:57):
Amongst other things, you.
Speaker 3 (18:59):
Derided your father in law's suggestion that you and Simon
get together and pray for your children, commenting quote this family,
I swear to fucking God.
Speaker 5 (19:10):
You called them quote a lost cause.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
You wondered whether they had quote any capacity for self
reflection at all. You said quote fuck him, and that
you suspect, suspected the best thing you could do was
quote just to forget about all of them and live
your life. You accuse Simon of quote gaslighting you, and
(19:35):
Don and Gale of using quote weasel words. You called
Simon quote a deadbeat and wondered why Gail was not
quote horrified by his stance regarding child support. According to
your testimony a trial, and to a lesser extent, Simon's testimony,
(19:55):
the dispute over child support had resolved by early twenty
three on the eighteenth of April twenty three, one, Christine Mackenzie,
a former poison specialist, was visiting her daughter in Locke,
which is a small town about a twenty five minute
drive northwest of Lean Gathera where you lived. Miss Mackenzie
(20:18):
observed death cap mushrooms in Locke Reserve and posted details
of her observations, including photographs, on the Eye Naturalist's website.
The same day, Miss Mackenzie disposed of all the death
cap mushrooms that she could find because of the danger
she thought they posed, especially to young children. On the
morning of the twenty eighth of April twenty three, your
(20:40):
mobile phone, which was never recovered by investigators, connected to
certain cell towers, consistent with a possible visit by you
to the Lock Reserve that afternoon. You purchased a food
dehydrator in Lean Gather. Between the twenty eighth of April
and the fourth of May three, you photographed forage mushrooms
(21:03):
on the trays of your dehydrator. The images were found
by investigators on a Samsung tablet later seized from your home.
Doctor Tom May, a world renowned expert in fungi, gave
evidence at your trial that those images were quote consistent
with death cap mushrooms to a high degree of confidence.
(21:25):
On the twenty first of May twenty three, doctor May
observed death cap mushrooms in Nilsen Street, Outram. Outram is
a small town about a twenty three minute drive southwest
of Lean Gathera. Later that day, doctor May posted details
of his observations, including photographs, on the I Naturalist website.
(21:47):
On the morning of the twenty second of May twenty three,
your phone connected to certain cell towers, consistent with a
possible visit by you to Locke Reserve. Later that morning,
your phone connected to certain cell town hours, consistent with
a possible visit by you to Nilsen.
Speaker 5 (22:04):
Street, Outram.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
On the twenty fourth of June twenty three, you hosted
a lunch at your Lee and Gather home, attended by
Don and Gail and your children. You had invited Simon
to that lunch, but he declined, saying in a text
message quote, Hi Erin, thank you for your kind lunch
invite together with mum and Dad. I'm sorry I'll decline
as I feel too uncomfortable about it. Between the twenty
(22:32):
eighth of June and the seventh of July twenty three,
there were a series of messages between you and Gale
in which you falsely represented that you had undergone a
needle biopsy for a lump in your arm and an MRI.
In response to a message from Gail as to how
you got on with your medical test, you messaged her
(22:54):
on the seventh of July twenty three that quote, there's
a bit to digest with everything that's come out of it.
I might talk more about it with you both when
I see you in person. On the sixteenth of July
twenty three, you attended the Sunday service at the Corumborough
Baptist Church, where Ian Wilkinson was and is the pastor.
(23:17):
After the service, you invited Gail and Don Patterson and
Heather and Ian Wilkinson to lunch at your home at
Gibson Street, Lee and Gatha on the twenty ninth of
July twenty three. Both the Pattersons and the Wilkinsons were
surprised by the invitation, as the Wilkinsons had never previously
been invited to a meal at your home. You also
(23:38):
invited Simon, telling him that you had invited his parents
and his aunt and uncle. You told him you had
some important medical news which you wanted to discuss at
the lunch, and that you did not want the children
to be present. Simon initially accepted your invitation and informed
his parents that the purpose of the love was to
(24:01):
discuss your medical issues and how to inform the children.
On the evening of the twenty eighth of July twenty three,
Simon and you exchanged messages. Simon's read quote, Sorry, I
feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, Mum, Dad,
Heather and Ian tomorrow, but I am happy to talk
(24:22):
about your health and implications of that at another time.
If you'd like to discuss on the phone, just let
me know, you replied five minutes later, quote, that's really disappointing.
I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow,
which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing,
(24:44):
and spent a small fortune on beef ive Phillip to
make beef Wellington's because I wanted it to be a
special meal, as I may not be able to host
a lunch like this again for some time. It's important
to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I
have the conversations that I need to have. I hope
you'll change your mind. Your parents and Heather and Ian
(25:07):
are coming at twelve thirty. I hope to see you there.
On Saturday, the twenty ninth of July twenty three, you
served your four lunch guests individual beef Wellington's, which were
deliberately poisoned with death cap mushrooms. You gave evidence at
your trial that had Simon attended the lunch, you would
(25:29):
also have served him a beef Wellington. I accept the
evidence of Ian Wilkinson that you served your guests their
meals on four gray plates, while your individual beef Wellington
was on a smaller orangey tan colored plate, a fact
that Heather also commented on to Ian and Simon the
next day. I find that you did this to ensure
(25:52):
that you did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal. I
also accept the evidence of Ian Wilkinson that at the
conclusion of the meal, you falsely told your guests that
you had been diagnosed with cancer and sought their advice
as to whether and how you should break the news
to your children that you had a life threatening illness.
(26:16):
Not long after this conversation started, your son and his friend,
who had gone to a movie, returned home. The conversation
about cancer ceased, but not before all your lunch guests,
at Ian's suggestion, prayed for your health soon after they left.
(26:36):
Around midnight to one a m on Sunday, the thirtieth
of July twenty three, all of your lunch guests fell
seriously ill, suffering repeated vomiting and diarrhea. On Sunday morning,
Gale and Donn informed Simon of their conditions and called
an ambulance, which took them to nearby Crumborough Hospital. Simon
attended the Wilkinsons home to find that Heather and Ian
(26:59):
was similar unwell. He took them first to Corumborough Hospital,
but was redirected to Lean Gather Hospital.
Speaker 5 (27:07):
Because of limited resources.
Speaker 3 (27:09):
By way of contrast, you made a round trip of
approximately two hours on Sunday afternoon to take your son
to a flying lesson at Tiab. By the Sunday evening,
Don and Gale had been transferred to Dandenong Hospital. On
the morning of Monday, the thirty first of July twenty three,
Ian and Heather were also transferred to Dandenong Hospital. Later
(27:32):
that day, Gail and Don were transferred to the Austin Hospital,
as were Heather and Ian on Tuesday, the first of
August twenty three. All of them were experiencing advanced multiple
organ failure. Having learned from Simon on the Sunday that
your parents in law had been hospitalized, you attended Leanngather
(27:54):
Hospital on the Monday, complaining of diarrhea.
Speaker 5 (27:58):
You did not stay long.
Speaker 3 (28:00):
Shortly after a doctor indicated to you that death cap
mushroom poisoning was suspected, you left, despite warnings by another
doctor and nurse that your life was in danger. You
returned over an hour and a half later. When you returned,
you showed reluctance to receive treatment for suspected death cap
(28:20):
mushroom poisoning and to organize a medical.
Speaker 5 (28:23):
Assessment for your children who were at school.
Speaker 3 (28:26):
Medical staff were urging you to have the children assessed
because you claimed falsely that on the Sunday night you
fed them the leftovers of the beef wellingtons with the
pastry and mushrooms scraped off. Eventually, you arranged with Simon
to collect the children and bring them to hospital. On
the Monday morning, police recovered beef wellington remains from a
(28:47):
bin outside your home, which were later found to contain
death cap mushroom toxins. On the Monday afternoon, you were
transferred to Monash Medical Center in Clayton. Simon brought the
children there. You and the children were kept in hospital
overnight for observation. At both Lee and Gatha Hospital and
(29:07):
Monash Medical Center, you were asked by various people, including
doctors and representatives of the Health Department and the Child
Protection Service, where you would source the mushrooms for the
beef wellingtons.
Speaker 5 (29:19):
You said you would purchase some fresh.
Speaker 3 (29:21):
Mushrooms at Woolworth's and some dried mushrooms from an Asian grocery.
You were vague about the location of the Asian grocery,
claiming you would purchase the dried mushrooms several months before
and that the shop could have been in one of
a number of suburbs that fall within the boundaries of
the city of Monash. You denied having forage for mushrooms,
(29:42):
a lie repeated in your recorded police interview on the
fifth of August twenty three. At your trial, you maintained
the story about having sourced some of the mushrooms from
an Asian grocery, but testified that in May and June
of twenty three you had foraged for edible mushrooms in
various places, including the Corumborough Botanical Gardens. You testified that
(30:06):
you had dehydrated these mushrooms and put them in a
container which contained the dried mushrooms from the Asian Grocery,
and that you used the dried mushrooms in that container
along with the fresh mushrooms from Woolworths in the beef Wellingtons.
You testified that in this way, death cap mushrooms must
(30:27):
have accidentally found their way into the meals served to
your lunch guests. The jury rejected this elaborate explanation. They
found that you deliberately poisoned the meals of your lunch guess.
I am satisfied that your vague story about the Asian
grocery was a lie. When you realized that their lie
(30:48):
would not work because death cap mushrooms cannot be cultivated
commercially and there were no other reports of people falling
ill from mushrooms purchased at Asian groceries, you changed tack.
You concocted the story you told the jury about foraged
mushrooms ending up in the container with the Asian grocery
(31:08):
mushrooms and then accidentally ending up in the beef wellingtons.
On the afternoon of Tuesday, the first of August twenty three,
you and the children were discharged from Monash Hospital. On
the morning of the second of August twenty three, you
disposed of your dehydrator at a local tip, the Kunwara
(31:29):
transfer station.
Speaker 5 (31:31):
On the fourth of August.
Speaker 3 (31:32):
Twenty three, investigators recovered your dehydrator from the tip. Forensic
examination revealed that the dehydrator contained traces of death cap mushrooms.
That same day, fourth of August twenty three, Heather Wilkinson,
aged sixty six, and Gale Patterson, aged seventy, died from
(31:53):
Deathcap mushroom poisoning, and Don Patterson, who was desperately ill,
was given a liver transplant. On the fifth of August
twenty three, the police executed a search warrant at your home.
You handed over a dummy phone. It was not the
phone that you had been using throughout most of twenty three.
The phone which on the twenty eighth of April twenty
(32:14):
three had connected to certain cell towers indicating a possible
visit to Locke, and which on the twenty second of
May twenty three, had connected to certain cell towers, indicating
possible visits to Locke and Outram. In your recorded interview
following the search, you denied having foraged for mushrooms and
(32:34):
denied owning a dehydrator. Late on the fifth of August
twenty three, Don Patterson, aged seventy, died from death cap
mushroom poisoning. Ian Wilkinson very nearly died, but gradually his
condition improved. On the twenty first of August twenty three,
he was discharged from the intensive care unit to a
(32:56):
ward at the Austin Hospital. On the eleventh of September
twenty three, he was moved to the Hardelberg Repatriation Hospital.
On the twenty first of September twenty three, he was
discharged home. He has not fully recovered. He has reduced
kidney function, ongoing respiratory issues, and reduced energy. On the
(33:18):
second of November twenty three, the police executed another search
warrant at your home, seizing more electrical devices. You were
arrested and charged. You have been in custody ever since.
Let me now summarize the aggravating circumstances of your offending.
(33:39):
Your offending which resulted in the death of three people
and near death of another, involved substantial premeditation. I am
satisfied that by the sixteenth of July twenty three, when
you unusually invited Simon, his parents, and his aunt and
uncle to a lunch without the children to discuss your
(34:00):
on existent medical issues, you did so with the intention
of killing them all. The dehydrator, which you purchased in
late twenty three late April twenty three enabled you to
preserve death cap mushrooms, which you put into the individual
beef Wellington's served to your guests.
Speaker 5 (34:19):
Whether those death.
Speaker 3 (34:20):
Cap mushrooms came from Locke on the twenty eighth of
April twenty three, or from Locke or Outram on the
twenty second of May twenty three, or from another location
in May or June of twenty three, as you suggested
in your testimony, is in my view of no great moment.
After learning from Simon on Sunday the thirtieth of July
(34:43):
twenty three, that some or all of your lunch guests
had been hospitalized, you showed no pity for your victims.
Instead of informing those treating the Pattersons and Wilkinsons that
you had used forage mushrooms, which you could have done
without having to admit that you had deliberately poisoned their meals.
(35:04):
You repeatedly denied foraging, insisting that the mushrooms for the
beef wellingtons were sourced solely from Woolworth's.
Speaker 5 (35:11):
And an Asian grocery.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
We will never know whether revealing the use of foraged
mushrooms would have made a difference. But the administration of
the drug silibinin, which is a specific antidote for death
cap mushroom poisoning, was not commenced on the thirtieth of
July twenty three because at that stage the evidence regarding
the type of toxin was inconclusive. Similarly, the administration of
(35:38):
NAC to preserve the victim's livers from toxins was not
commenced until almost midnight on the thirtieth of July twenty
three for Don Patterson and on the thirty first of
July twenty three for the others. The prosecution submitted that
I should infer from your pitiless behavior that your intention
to kill was ongoing, and that this constitutes an additional
(36:02):
aggravating circumstance.
Speaker 5 (36:04):
I accept that submission. As the Wilkinson's.
Speaker 3 (36:08):
Daughter Ruth Dubois remarked in her victim impact statement, you
quote followed through on your lethal plan. Your lunch guests
each suffered severe gastro intestinal illness on the Sunday and
Monday prior to being sedated and mechanically ventilated. Their suffering
(36:29):
was protracted, and Ian Wilkins suffers ongoing health issues.
Speaker 5 (36:34):
This aggravates your offending.
Speaker 3 (36:37):
The prosecution submitted that you must have anticipated that your
victims would suffer in the way they did. I am
satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt, it is implausible that
you would have selected death cap mushrooms without ascertaining how
they would work upon your victims.
Speaker 5 (36:56):
Further, the devastating.
Speaker 3 (36:58):
Impact of your crimes is not limited to your direct victims.
Your crimes have harmed a great many people. I will
expand on this aggravating circumstance. When I turned to the
victim impact statements. In addition to denying the use of
foraged mushrooms, you engaged in an elaborate cover up of
(37:20):
your guilt. I find that you disposed of the four
grade plates on which you served the poison beef wellingtons
you falsely made out that you had fed your children
left over beef Wellington's, with the pastry and mushrooms scraped off.
You feigned illness. You disposed of the dehydrator soon after
you were released from a hospital. You maintained the vague
(37:40):
story about sourcing dried mushrooms at an Asian grocery, and
had the gall to tell police in your recorded police
interview that you had been.
Speaker 5 (37:48):
Very, very helpful to the Health department in its investigation
of the incident.
Speaker 3 (37:54):
You disposed of your phone and provided police with a
dummy farm. You lied to the police in your recorded
police interview about various matters. Finally, and most importantly, your
offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust. Your victims were
all your relatives by marriage. More than that, they had
(38:14):
all been good to you and your children over many years,
as you acknowledged in your testimony. Not only did you
cut short three lives and cause lasting damage to Ian
Wilkinson's health, thereby devastating the extended Patterson and Wilkinson families,
you inflicted untold suffering on your own children, whom you
(38:35):
robbed of their beloved grandparents. The victim impacts statements reveal
the immense and ongoing anguish suffered by your many victims,
direct and indirect. No summary could do justice to the
individual and collective power of those statements. It is not
(38:58):
my intention here to say summarize or refer to every statement,
but rather to highlight some key aspects. Four generations of
the extended Pattison and Wilkinson families have been traumatized by
your crimes, not to mention their friends. Don's mother, Martha Patterson,
(39:19):
who is aged one hundred, made a victim impact statement.
In it, she prayed for God's healing for her family.
Gail and Heather's father, now deceased, also reached his one
hundredth birthday in twenty twenty four, but tragically, only one
of his three daughters, Lynn Young, whose statement was read
(39:41):
to the court, was alive to mark that milestone with him.
And there are many references in the statements to the
trauma experienced by the Patterson and Wilkinson grandchildren. Many of
your adult victims struggled not only with the loss of
their loved ones and the terrible way they died, but
with them distress, even guilt at their own seeming inability
(40:03):
to ease the suffering of those close to them.
Speaker 5 (40:07):
They keenly feel their limitations, and.
Speaker 3 (40:09):
In particular the impossibility of shielding the youngest from the
incessant discussion of the case in the media, online, in
public spaces, even in the school yard. Many also struggle
to cope with work and studies, and many have experienced
additional financial burdens. There is, of course, great anger at
(40:30):
the callousness of your actions. To take just one example,
Ian Wilkinson's sister Dorothy Dicker, questions, quote how anyone could
sit there and watch those four kind and caring people
eat that meal. Your failure to exhibit any remorse pours
salt into all the victim's wounds. The children of your
(40:55):
direct victims speak of the distress of watching their parents
suffer in hospital. For example, Donngale's son Matthew remarks, quote
watching my parents suffer in hospital from severe poisoning called shock,
grief and lasting trauma. Ian and Heather's son David, remembers
his mother being quote desperate for water, which he was
(41:17):
not allowed by medical staff, and saying her quote insides
were burning. David also mentions his father's tortured experience quote
black lips, gaunt, face, pained and serious expression. At your
plea hearing, Ian Wilkinson memorably read his victim impact statement
(41:41):
to the court. Amongst other things, he humbly expressed his
great admiration and love for his wife, Heather, and his
concern for others, even you. He offered you forgiveness for
what you did to him. Quote in regards to the
(42:04):
many harms done to me, I make an offer of
forgiveness to Erin. I say harms done to me Advisedly,
I have no power or responsibility to forgive harms done
to others. However, I encourage Erin to receive my offer
of forgiveness for those harms done to me, with full
confession and repentance. I bear her no ill will. That
(42:31):
offer of forgiveness presents you with an opportunity. You would
do well to embrace it in the manner he suggests.
In commenting on the unprecedented coverage of your case, Ian
Wilkinson also made this point quote, It's one of the
(42:56):
distressing shortcoms shortcomings of our society, that so much attention
is showered on those who do evil.
Speaker 5 (43:04):
And so little on those who do good.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
Your lunch guests undoubtedly belonged to that company of people
among us who do good.
Speaker 5 (43:17):
The victim impact.
Speaker 3 (43:18):
Statements make it clear that each one of them, over
many years, gave of themselves generously and made lasting contributions
to many many lives, and in Ian's case, continues.
Speaker 5 (43:31):
To make.
Speaker 3 (43:33):
All of them, inspired by their Christian faith, were deeply
invested not only in their families but in their wider communities,
as the statements from members of the Currumborough Baptist Church attest.
A word that is used again and again in the
statements to describe your crimes is quote senseless. Also surfaces
(44:01):
in the statements is hope and gratitude for the care
shown by others. Don and Gale's daughter Anna Terrington writes quote,
we have to say goodbye.
Speaker 5 (44:14):
For now to Mum and Dad and Heather.
Speaker 3 (44:19):
Don's brother Colin writes quote, As Christians, they were people
of hope and sharing that hope. My loss is not
one marked by despair. Ruth Dubais expresses her great appreciation
for the efforts made and compassion shown by the medical teams.
Simon Patterson gives thanks quote for the incredibly strong, gentle
(44:43):
patient and caring support from friends, family, schools, our own
church congregation, the wider church, colleagues, work clients, neighbors, police,
government officers, and our professional counselors. We have experienced love
in a special.
Speaker 5 (45:00):
Away since the murders.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
I will conclude my account of key aspects of the
victim impact statements with what Donngale's son Matthew had to.
Speaker 5 (45:11):
Say about your betrayal of trust. Quote.
Speaker 3 (45:15):
Erin was embraced as part of the Patterson family. She
was welcome and treated with genuine love and respect in
a way she did not appear to experience from her
own family. Her actions represent a profound and devastating betrayal
of the trust and love extended to her. Having regard
(45:37):
to the aggravating circumstances of your offending and the victim
impact statements, I have no hesitation in finding that your
offending falls into the worst category for the offenses of
murder and attempted murder, as the case law makes clear.
The fact that it is possible to imagine even worse
instances of such offenses does not refute that categorization. The
(46:00):
gravity of your offending warrants the imposition of the maximum
penalties for your crimes. I turned then to your circumstances.
The information I was provided about your personal history was minimal.
Your council simply relied on the personal history you provided
in your trial testimony. There were no psychiatric or psychological reports, provided,
(46:24):
no references from character witnesses. No doubt that approach to
your plea hearing was based on your instructions. But it
means the account of your personal history that I am
about to give is limited. You were born in Adelaide
on the thirtieth September nineteen seventy four, making you forty
eight years old at the time of your offending and
(46:46):
fifty now. Your maiden name was Scutter. In nineteen seventy seven,
your family relocated to Melbourne, residing in Hampton.
Speaker 5 (46:54):
In two thousand and four, you and.
Speaker 3 (46:56):
Simon Patterson met whilst you were both employed at Monash
City Council. Simon told the jury that he was working
there as a civil engineer, and you were the RSPCA's
representative on the council. By two thousand and five, you
and Simon were romantically involved. In two thousand and six,
your grandmother died, leaving you a substantial inheritance moneys from
(47:18):
her estate were distributed between two thousand and seven and
two thousand and fifteen. During those years, you would be
generous with your money to Simon's siblings, providing large, no
interest loans to them and their spouses so that they
could purchase their own homes. On the second of June
two thousand and seven, you and Simon married. You told
(47:39):
the jury that your parents did not attend the wedding
they were holidaying in Russia. Soon after your marriage, you
and Simon traveled around Australia and overseas for a few
months before settling in Perth. Simon got a job working
for an inner city Ship council in two thousand and nine,
when you were thirty five four. Your son was born
(48:02):
in April two thousand and nine. You and Simon set
off with the baby to explore the top end of Australia.
You reached Townsville in November two thousand and nine, at
which point you parted company. You flew back to Perth,
Simon drove back with the baby. You rented a cottage
for you and the baby. Simon rented an onsite caravan
close by. This was the first of many comparatively short
(48:25):
term separations. You reunited by the end of January twenty
and ten. In twenty eleven, your father died. In that year,
you also opened a second hand bookshop in Pedmington, Western Australia.
In twenty thirteen, when you were pregnant, you and Simon
returned to Victoria with your son to live closer to
(48:45):
Simon's family. In twenty fourteen, your daughter was born. In
twenty fifteen, you and Simon separated permanently. In two thousand
and nineteen, your mother died, leaving you an inheritance. In
June twenty two, you and your children moved into a
newly constructed home at eighty four Gibson, Streatley and Gathera,
(49:08):
the home at which you served the fatal lunch on
the twenty ninth of July twenty three. You have no
relevant criminal history. You maintain your innocence. In other words,
there is no evidence of remorse. I turn now to
the conditions of your imprisonment. As mentioned, you have been
in custody since the second of November twenty three. There
(49:31):
were two affidavits tended relating to your conditions of imprisonment.
The first was sworn.
Speaker 5 (49:37):
By a solicitor who acts for you and was based
largely on your instructions.
Speaker 3 (49:41):
The second affidavit was sworn by Jennifer Hoskin, Assistant Commissioner,
Sentenced Management Division at Corrections Victoria, who also testified at
your plea hearing. Miss Hoskins evidence included confirmation of the
following matters. You have a quote Maximum Security you rating
and quote major offender status. Because of the nature of
(50:06):
your crimes and your notoriety, you have been assessed as
being at significant risk from other prisoners. You have not
been assessed as posing a risk to other prisoners. You
have spent approximately sixteen months of your twenty two months
at Dame Phillis Frost Center in a management unit called
(50:26):
the Gordon Unit, and the rest of the time in
a protection unit called the Murray Unit. A management unit
is more restrictive than a protection unit. You have been
in the Gordon Unit continuously for the last fifteen months.
The Gordon unit has about twenty cells. You are not
permitted to mix with the other women in the Gordon Unit.
(50:50):
You have spent at least twenty two hours in your
cell every day that you have been in the Gordon Unit.
There have been sixteen days since November twenty four where
because of lockdowns, you have been confined to your cell
for the entire twenty four hours per day. The maximum
period that a prisoner in the Gordon Unit could have
(51:12):
out of their cell on any given day is four hours,
but quote that wouldn't happen very often. Your meals and
medicine are currently delivered through a flap in your cell door.
There is a small concrete yard approximately two meters by
one point five meters which adjoins your cell, which with permission,
(51:34):
you may access for fresh air. If prisoners are using
the larger exercise yard which abuts your exercise yard, you
may not use your small yard. During your time in
the Gordon Unit, you have barely had any contact with
other individuals. Permission is required for you to communicate with
(51:57):
any other prisoner, which, according to your council, is complicated
by the fact that you are not informed of the
identities of the other prisoners in the Gordon Unit. You
currently have approval to communicate with one other prisoner in
the Gordon Unit through a wire mesh when the two
of you are permitted to use your respective adjoining exercise yards.
(52:20):
That under other prisoner is undergoing a lengthy sentence for
terrorism offenses and has attacked other prisoners. You did not
ask to communicate with that person and have not communicated
with her. The suggestion that you should communicate with her
was made by a corrections officer. There is an intercom
(52:41):
in your cell, which, if permission is granted, you may
use to communicate with one other prisoner in the unit
at a time, but you have not done so. In
order to attend any other part of the prison, for example,
the visitors center or the library, you are driven there
escorted by two corrections officers. While theoretically prisoners in the
(53:03):
Gordon Unit are able to access the prison library twice
per week for twenty minutes at a time, you have
not been able to do so because of staff shortages
and a rule that you may not access the library
if another is doing so. Consequently, you have only been
able to access the library a handful of times during
your time in the Gordon Unit. United Nations guidelines known
(53:28):
as the Bangkok Rules provide that a prisoner should not
be in separation for more than fifteen days at a time,
but you have now been in separation continuously for fifteen months.
There are two prisoners in the Gordon Unit who have
been there in excess of three years, and whilst the
(53:49):
primary principle in the placement of prisoners is to manage
and place them in the least restrictive environment necessary to
ensure the safety and security of the individual prisoner and
others prisoners, the least restrictive environment can be very restrictive
as for your future conditions of imprisonment, Whilst your placement
(54:12):
in the.
Speaker 5 (54:12):
Gordon Unit is reviewed.
Speaker 3 (54:13):
Monthly, Miss Hoskin was unable to say whether you would
ever be moved from the Gordon Unit. I infer that,
given the unprecedented media coverage of your case and the books,
documentaries and TV series about you, which are all in
the pipeline, you are likely to remain remain a notorious
(54:35):
prisoner for many years to come, and as such remain
at significant risks from other prisoners. I turn then to
a number of relevant sentencing principles and rules. Section five
of the Sentencing Act nineteen ninety one declares that the
only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment,
(54:58):
specific and general de terrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of
the community. I have had regard to all of these
sentencing purposes in formulating my sentences, but rehabilitation has taken
a back seat because of the gravity of your offending.
(55:19):
Other provisions of the Sentencing Act that are of particular
relevance to your case are as follows. Under section six
A to six F, you fall to be sentenced as
a serious violent offender in respect of the three murders,
meaning that the protection of the community is the principal
purpose for which the sentences on those counts must be imposed.
(55:41):
Under section six F, your status as a serious violent
offender must be entered in the court records. Section eleven
one provides relevantly that if a court sentences an offender
to be imprisonment for the term of her natural life,
the court must, as part of the sentence, fix a
period during which the offender is not eligible to be
(56:02):
released on parole, unless it considers that the nature of
the offense makes the fixing of such a period inappropriate.
Section eleven a, for a, provides that where an offender
is sentenced to life imprisonment, the sentence must fix a
non parole period of at least thirty years, unless it
(56:24):
is not in the interests of justice to do so.
Is it inappropriate to fix a non parole period. Would
fixing a non parole period be contrary to the interests
of justice? As mentioned above, This is the main dispute
that I have to determine sentence in case law establishes that,
(56:48):
as a general rule, harsher than normal conditions of imprisonment
will warrant mitigation of penalty. There is nothing about your
conduct whilst in custody which might cast doubt on the
application of that general rule. As Miss Hosking indicated, you
are in a management unit to protect you from other prisoners,
(57:11):
not vice versa, nor do you have any relevant criminal history.
In their written submissions, the prosecution conceded that your conditions
of imprisonment are more burdensome than for a mainstream prisoner,
and that they are likely to remain so for the
foreseeable future. The prosecution submitted that this is a quote
(57:34):
relevant consideration for sentence. In oral submissions, the prosecution conceded
that this consideration was not just relevant, but quote important
and quote weighty. While still pressing for life imprisonment with
no possibility of parole, you have effectively been held in
(57:59):
con tenuous solitary confinement for the last fifteen months, and
at the very least, there is a substantial chance that,
for your protection, you will continue to be held in
solitary confinement for years to come. The Court of Appeal
in yeat against the King referred without criticism to the
(58:20):
observation that quote the adverse health effects of solitary confinement
are well established. I note too that Miss Hosking stated
at the plea hearing that quote being separated has negative
outcomes for people.
Speaker 5 (58:37):
We're very aware of that.
Speaker 3 (58:41):
The harsh prison conditions that you have experienced already and
the likely prospect of solitary confinement for the foreseeable future
are important and weighty considerations which should count for something
in the sentencing exercise. In my view, the only scope
for making them count is by the fixing of a
(59:03):
non parole period. In opposing the imposition of a non
parole period, the prosecution relied on the coin against Colston,
where the offender was sentenced to life imprisonment without a
non parole period for the savage murders of three people.
But that case makes clear that quote where there is
(59:24):
a substantial factor pointing towards clemency. As I consider your
present and likely future conditions of imprisonment to be The
fixing of a non parole period may be appropriate, even
for an offender who has committed multiple murders. Fixing a
(59:44):
non parole period is not to undervalue the horrendous nature
of your offending. Your total effective sentence will be life imprisonment,
and the period during which you will be ineligible for
parole will be a very substantial one. Please stand for
(01:00:08):
the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson. I sentence you to
twenty five years imprisonment. For the murder of Heather Wilkinson.
I sentence you to life imprisonment. For the murder of
Gail Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment for the
murder of Don Patterson. I sentence you to life imprisonment.
(01:00:28):
All sentences are to be served concurrently. The total effective
sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole
period of thirty three years. I declare that you have
served six hundred and seventy six days by way of
pre sentenced attention.
Speaker 5 (01:00:49):
Finally, and by consent, I make the.
Speaker 3 (01:00:53):
Disposal order sought by the prosecution. Would you please remove
miss Patterson.
Speaker 1 (01:01:01):
So that was the sentence in full keep an eye
out for more episodes to come.
Speaker 2 (01:01:06):
Until next time, Brook
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.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.