The Mushroom Murder Trial: What's Happening with Erin Patterson's Appeal?

The Supreme Court of Victoria announced on 18 August 2026 that Erin Patterson's appeal hearings will be broadcast live online for the public to watch. The hearings are set for Wednesday 19 August 2026 and Thursday 20 August, taking place in Court 450. The first session starts at 9:45 in the morning, with the main arguments beginning at 10:15. (Supreme Court of Victoria)

Erin Patterson was found guilty of murdering three people: her parents-in-law, Don and Gail Patterson, and her aunt-in-law, Heather Wilkinson. She was also convicted of attempting to murder a fourth person. On 8 September 2025, a judge named Justice Christopher Beale handed down her sentence at the Supreme Court of Victoria. (Supreme Court of Victoria)

Patterson is now fighting back. She has filed paperwork to appeal her conviction — meaning she is asking a higher court to overturn the guilty verdicts — on seven different grounds, or reasons. She has also separately appealed her sentence, arguing that the punishment she received was too harsh. Both the conviction and the sentence are now under review. (Reuters; Supreme Court of Victoria)

The dates for the appeal were first set on 29 May 2026, when the court confirmed the hearings would take place on 19 and 20 August. (Al Jazeera; Reuters)

The decision to livestream these hearings is part of a growing pattern. Australian courts have been broadcasting more of their significant cases online so the public can watch in real time. The Supreme Court of Victoria already livestreamed Patterson's sentencing hearing back in September 2025. Now the Court of Appeal is doing the same for the appeal stage.

This move toward transparency matters because the case has drawn enormous attention both in Australia and around the world. By broadcasting the hearings, the court is letting the public follow the legal reasoning directly rather than relying on news summaries.

Here is how the appeal process works. Before Patterson can have a full appeal heard, the court first has to decide whether her reasons for appealing are strong enough to deserve one. This initial step is called 'leave to appeal' — it acts like a filter, making sure the court only spends time on arguments that have a real chance of succeeding. Patterson has put forward seven grounds, and the court needs to find that at least one of them has a reasonable prospect of success before letting the full appeal go ahead.

There are actually two separate appeals happening at the same time. One challenges the conviction itself — whether the guilty verdicts were legally correct. The other challenges the sentence — whether the punishment was fair and appropriate. If the conviction appeal succeeds, the verdicts could be thrown out entirely, or the court could order a new trial. If the sentence appeal succeeds, Patterson could be given a different, potentially lighter sentence.

The hearing follows a standard order. The court starts with preliminary matters at 9:45, then moves into the main arguments at 10:15. Two days of hearings is a normal amount of time for a case this complex, given that it involves three murder convictions, an attempted murder count, seven grounds of appeal, and a separate sentence appeal.

One thing to understand about appeals is that they look very different from trials. There are no witnesses testifying and no jury listening. Instead, lawyers present legal arguments to a panel of judges, focusing on whether mistakes were made in how the law was applied during the original trial. That is why watching an appeal livestream is less about dramatic courtroom moments and more about hearing the legal back-and-forth that will decide whether the convictions and sentence stay in place.

What happens next depends on the court's ruling on leave. If the court grants leave on one or more of the seven grounds, the case moves forward to a full appeal, possibly across both days. If the court refuses leave on all seven grounds, the convictions and sentence stand as they are, and Patterson's options for further review become very limited. Either way, this ruling will be the next major turning point in a case that has now shifted from the trial phase into the appeal phase.