The Erin Patterson Mushroom Murder Appeal: What's Happening and Why It Matters

Erin Patterson's appeal against her murder convictions resumed in a Victorian court on 20 August 2026. Prosecutors pushed back against her lawyers' challenges to key evidence, and the only person who survived the deadly lunch returned to watch.

Patterson appeared by video from prison, where she has been since September 2025. A judge sentenced her to life in prison with a non-parole period of 33 years, meaning she cannot be considered for release until 2056 (ABC News).

The hearing took place over two days, 19 and 20 August, and was livestreamed so the public could watch (Supreme Court of Victoria). Three judges are considering seven separate arguments from Patterson's lawyers about why her trial was unfair.

Ian Wilkinson, the only guest to survive the fatal meal, came to court on the second day with his daughter Ruth Dubois (The Guardian). His presence is a reminder of the real people at the heart of this case. The July 2023 lunch at Patterson's home in Leongatha killed three guests and left Wilkinson fighting for his life.

The main focus of day two was prosecutors' response to one of Patterson's arguments. Her lawyers say two types of evidence should not have been shown to the jury at her trial: data from mobile phone towers and records from a website called iNaturalist, where ordinary people report sightings of plants and fungi, including death cap mushrooms.

At the trial, an expert named Dr Matthew Sorell presented the phone tower data. The prosecution used it to argue that Patterson's phone connected to towers near two places where death cap mushrooms had been spotted on iNaturalist. They said this suggested she could have gone to those places to collect the mushrooms before the lunch. The Crown prosecutor, Jeremy McWilliams, said the two pieces of evidence together showed Patterson had the opportunity to find death cap mushrooms on purpose (The Guardian).

Patterson's lawyers are not just saying the evidence is unreliable. They are saying it should never have been allowed in the trial at all. There is a difference between questioning whether evidence is accurate and questioning whether it should have been permitted in the first place. Think of it like a referee in a sport deciding whether a piece of evidence is even allowed on the field. If the appeal judges agree the trial judge made a mistake by allowing it, the conviction could be at risk.

On the first day of the hearing, Patterson's barrister described a "catastrophic" problem with how the jury reached its verdict, though the full details have not yet been explained in court (YouTube).

The appeal is not only about whether Patterson's convictions stand. Victoria's prosecutors have also filed what is called a cross-appeal, meaning they are challenging the sentence from their side. They argue that life in prison with a possible release after 33 years is too lenient. Prosecutor Brendan Kissane said they will ask for life imprisonment with no chance of parole at all (The Courant).

This two-sided appeal means several things could happen. The judges could uphold the convictions and the sentence. They could throw out the convictions and order a new trial. They could acquit Patterson entirely. Or they could reject her appeal but agree with prosecutors that the sentence was too light, and give her a harsher one.

The hearing began almost a year after Patterson was sentenced (The Daily Aus). The seven appeal arguments challenge different parts of the trial, from what evidence was allowed to how the jury made its decision.

The broader context is that the appeal judges are not re-running the trial. They are not deciding whether Patterson is guilty based on the facts again. Their job is to check whether legal mistakes were made during the trial. In my view, that distinction matters a lot: a successful appeal does not necessarily mean the court thinks Patterson is innocent. It means the court found that something went wrong with the legal process, and that the mistake may have affected the outcome. The Crown's cross-appeal also adds a layer of risk for Patterson. Even if her appeal fails, she could still end up with a tougher sentence than the one she originally received.