Mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson back in court to fight life sentence for killing family with beef Wellington

Mushroom poisoner Erin Patterson back in court to fight life sentence for killing family with beef Wellington Mushroom killer Erin Patterson, 51, is heading back to court in a bid to have her conviction overturned after being jailed for murdering three relatives with a poisoned beef Wellington A woman who was jailed for killing three relatives with a poisoned beef Wellington is set to return to court in a bid to overturn her conviction. Erin Patterson, 51, was sentenced to life behind bars last autumn after being found guilty of lacing a meal she served to her in-laws with deathcap mushrooms. Her ex-husband's parents Don Patterson, 70 and Gail Patterson, 70, died in hospital after eating the meal at her home in Victoria, Australia, along with Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson, 66. Ian Wilkinson, a local church minister, survived after having an emergency liver transplant in hospital. It was heard during the 11-week trial that the relationship between Patterson and her estranged husband, Simon, had broken down in the months leading up to the lunch on July 29, 2023 The life sentence with a 33-year non-parole period was handed down in September - but on Wednesday, Patterson is set to return to court via video-link after her lawyers claimed there were issues with the evidence. Despite being found guilty, Patterson still maintains that the deaths were accidental, and that she did not know the mushrooms were poisonous. Her lawyers claim that the prosecution's five-day cross-examination was "unfair and oppressive", and have questioned several pieces of evidence used in the trial, such mobile phone tower data, social media posts reporting sightings of death cap mushrooms, which they say should never have been presented to the jury, Patterson's team claims the evidence was not relevant and was prejudicial, causing a miscarriage of justice. They also argue that other pieces of evidence, including photos and images relating to her hobby of mushroom foraging that support their argument the deaths were an accident, had been wrongly excluded. The appeal document submitted by Patterson's lawyers also cites the jury deliberations. The case was reported not just across Australia, but the world, and due to the attention it had drawn there were steps taken throughout the trial to make sure the jury was not influenced by family, friends or the media when making their decisions. When deliberations began, jurors had to stay in supervised acommodation with limited contact with the outside world until a decision was reached. But Patterson's lawyers argue a "fundamental irregularity" took place which "fatally undermined" the integrity of the verdicts. It is claimed that due to the attention the case brought, room shortages in the areas around the courthouse meant jurors ended up in a hotel which also had members of the prosecution, a key police witness and journalists staying there. The judge at the time said the jury had a whole floor to themselves and there was no evidence they had any contact with anyone linked to the case who was also staying there. While Patterson's team did not raise concerns during the trial, they said in their appeal filing: "[This] requires the quashing of the convictions and an order for a re-trial so that justice cannot only be done but be seen to be done." The Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has meanwhile filed a separate appeal - arguing that Patterson’s current sentence is “manifestly inadequate” given the that three people were killed, and another left seriously ill. Prosecutors also claim that the judge allowed the expectation that Patterson would spend extended periods of her sentence in solitary confinement, to protect her from fellow prisoners, to influence his sentence. If the prosecution's appeal is successful, Patterson's parole period could be extended beyond 33 years or she could be given a sentence of life without parole - the Australian equivalent of a whole-life order. The appeal will be heard by a three-judge panel at the Victorian Court of Appeal in Melbourne, and is set to last two days. Under Australian law, appeals are heard and decided by a bench of three senior judges, not by a new jury. Defence teams must prove specific flaws took place in the original trial, such as improper admission of evidence or procedural irregularities. Should the appeal be successful, the case would be eligible to go to a retrial or an acquittal.