After seven weeks of evidence, six days of summing up, and six and a half days of jury deliberation in the Victorian Supreme Court sitting in Morwell, Victoria, the verdict is finally in. Erin Patterson murdered her estranged husband's parents, Don and Gail Patterson, along with Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson.

Login or signup to continue reading

She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Heather's husband Ian: the only guest to survive the beef Wellington lunch served in July 2023 at her home in Leongatha.

In delivering the guilty verdict, the jury was satisfied Erin Patterson had complete control over the ingredients that went into the meal portions served to her guests - portions that included death cap mushrooms.

There would not be too many observers surprised with the outcome, given the strength of the prosecution case presented by Nanette Rogers.

There were no procedural surprises in this case. The prosecution presented its case, followed by the defence and ultimately, a jury verdict.

But this much-publicised case raises a number of legal issues that contributed to the length of the trial and its outcome. Let's unpack them.

The first is the question of motive. Defence counsel Colin Mandy made much of his assertion that there was no apparent reason for the accused to kill her guests.

It is, however, a mistake to think there needs to be a motive in order to convict. In cases of murder and attempted murder, all that's required is for a jury to find a "culpable state of mind".

In the case of the three deceased, the jury needed to be satisfied, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there was an intention to kill, or to do serious bodily harm.

In other words, it did not matter why Patterson killed her victims, only that she intended to do so, or to inflict serious harm with death resulting. In the........

© Canberra Times