logo
Guilty verdict in mushroom murder trial: What happens if there's an appeal?

Guilty verdict in mushroom murder trial: What happens if there's an appeal?

RNZ News4 hours ago
By Mikaela Ortolan for ABC
Erin Patterson arriving in the back of a prison transport vehicle at Latrobe Valley Magistrate's Court in Morwell, Australia.
Photo:
AFP / MARTIN KEEP
After a marathon trial involving more than 50 witnesses, Erin Patterson has been found guilty by a jury of murdering three relatives by lacing their meals with death cap mushrooms.
The high-profile case has captured a global audience, with seats at Morwell's Latrobe Valley Law Courts in regional Victoria filling each day for more than two months.
After about a week of deliberations, a Supreme Court jury on Monday delivered its verdict, finding the 50-year-old guilty of murdering Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson.
It also found her guilty of the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, the only surviving guest of the lunch.
But the case's time in the courts may not be over, with the possibility Patterson could appeal the decision.
Patterson will have 28 days from the date of her sentence to begin the process of lodging an appeal, according to the Supreme Court of Victoria.
Her legal team can appeal either the guilty verdict itself, the sentence handed down or both of those things together.
Outside of this window, convicted people must file for an extension of time which may or may not be accepted by the courts.
University of Newcastle criminology researcher Xanthe Mallett said the prosecution would also have the opportunity to appeal a sentence once that had been handed down.
"If in cases where the sentence is considered to be too lenient, the prosecution can appeal that - the severity of the sentence, but they can't appeal a not-guilty verdict," she said.
Erin Patterson was found guilty on three counts of murder and one of attempted murder today.
Photo:
ABC News
There are a number of grounds the defence can appeal on.
High-profile barrister Robert Richter KC said the most common ground was that the verdict was unsatisfactory and unreasonable.
"The Court of Appeal might find that it isn't sufficient to justify a conviction," he said.
"But that on its own is a very difficult ground to get home, because it sort of does not usurp the function of the jury, but what it does is it looks at what a jury ought to have concluded or should have concluded."
Richter said if any of the directions given to the jury had misstated the law, it could be grounds for an appeal, but noted the judge presiding over the high-profile case had been "very careful".
Mallett said the defence would need to demonstrate that there was some error of law or some problem that was sufficient to be granted grounds of appeal.
"Every case is obviously unique," Mallett said.
"If [the defence] appeal ... or want to appeal, they would look at every part of the case, looking for anything that they felt was a legal justification."
If an application to appeal is granted, the matter will go before the Court of Appeal but it could take months before a court date is set.
Richter said if the appeal succeeded in front of a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeal, there were two possibilities.
"One is to say the evidence was not sufficient to produce a verdict beyond reasonable doubt," he said.
"Or alternatively there have been errors and so the verdict has to be quashed."
If the verdict is quashed a retrial could be ordered.
If an application for leave to appeal is rejected in the first instance by the Court of Appeal, relevant parties could apply for leave to appeal in the High Court.
"That requires demonstrating particular problems that have a special application in the criminal law that the High Court would accept as important enough to give leave to appeal," Richter said.
"But the percentage of cases that get special leave to appeal in criminal matters is very, very low."
If leave to appeal is not granted, the verdict or sentence stands and the matter does not continue further.
- ABC
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi named as murderer who twice ran down Taku Manu Paul in Te Puke
Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi named as murderer who twice ran down Taku Manu Paul in Te Puke

RNZ News

time39 minutes ago

  • RNZ News

Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi named as murderer who twice ran down Taku Manu Paul in Te Puke

By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi was found guilty of murder for the death of his mother's partner, Taku Manu Paul, on Boxing Day 2022. Photo: NZ Herald / Belinda Feek A teenager who ran down his mother's partner with a car and killed him can now be named as Rereamanu Ronaki-Wihapi. Ronaki-Wihapi is serving a 17-year prison sentence for murdering Taku Manu Paul, with no prospect of parole for seven years. He was just 17 at the time and sitting next to his mother Ephron Ronaki, who was Paul's partner and arguing with him on the phone about missing Christmas money. Ronaki-Wihapi was sentenced in October last year but can only now be named and identified as Ronaki's son, after the release of a Court of Appeal decision. The ruling turned down his lawyer's attempt to win him permanent name suppression and quashed one of his two convictions. Ronaki-Wihapi and his mother went looking for Paul on Boxing Day 2022 because she believed her partner had taken $500, which had been a Christmas present to her. The teenager was driving because Ronaki was very drunk. They spotted Paul on a Te Puke street and, with his mother initially egging him on, Ronaki-Wihapi ran into Paul, then turned around and deliberately drove over him as he lay on the ground. In an unusual result which was due to a charging error, Ronaki-Wihapi received two different convictions for culpable homicide - one for murder and one for manslaughter - in relation to the same victim. The Court of Appeal has now quashed the manslaughter count, saying the two convictions cannot stand together. Ronaki-Wipahi, now 20, had no criminal history before the night he killed Paul. However, court documents say that he had a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. At trial, his defence counsel, Ron Mansfield KC, said he had been "a traumatised teen put in a situation of extreme stress". The trial was told that Ronaki told her son to "hit him, do it now, run him over" when they spotted Paul. The teenager hit Paul with the car twice, the first time on the left side with such force that Paul was thrown on to the windscreen before landing on the road. With chaos breaking out among the people in the vehicle, Ronaki-Wihapi then did a U-turn and aimed the Nissan Teana directly at Paul as he was lying on the road, driving over his chest, and away from the scene at speed. Ronaki-Wihapi said he was "in the moment" when he lined up on the prone man's head "and just boosted it", as his mother reached across and grabbed the steering wheel in an unsuccessful attempt to alter his course. Pathologists could not say for sure which of the two strikes, which could have been as little as 13 seconds apart, killed Paul. The whole incident, including the two impacts, was over within a minute and 14 seconds. Ronaki-Wihapi was charged with murder separately for each impact. At a jury trial, he was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter for the first hit, and guilty of murder for the second strike. He was sentenced to 17 years' imprisonment with no parole for seven years on the murder charge, and a lesser concurrent sentence for manslaughter. His mother was sent to prison for four years and three months after being convicted of manslaughter for her part in Paul's death. She was also convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice by claiming she had been the driver. Mansfield appealed Ronaki-Wihapi's murder conviction to the Court of Appeal, along with the High Court's refusal to grant his young client permanent name suppression. Before hearing the matter, the Court of Appeal advised him that it believed Ronaki-Wihapi could not be convicted twice of a culpable homicide relating to the same victim. Ephron Ronaki (centre) was sentenced to four years and three months for manslaughter of her part in the death of her partner, Taku Manu Paul. Photo: NZ Herald / Belinda Feek In its decision, it held that Ronaki-Wihapi should have either faced a single charge to cover both impacts, or two charges laid in the alternative. "The short point is that there was a charging error in this case," the Court of Appeal justices said. "Mr Ronaki-Wihapi should not have faced two cumulative charges of murder for the death of Mr Paul. "He should either have faced a single charge, particularised in a way that alleged that it was satisfied either by the first impact or alternatively by the second impact, or two charges of murder advanced in the alternative," the appeal court decision said. "The verdicts of manslaughter and murder cannot stand together." The appeal court determined that as the jury found Paul was still alive at the moment of the second impact, the manslaughter conviction should not stand in relation to the first hit. The murder conviction, which related to the second impact, was upheld. The Court of Appeal decision also said the threshold that an offender would suffer "extreme hardship" if his identity was published was not met in relation to name suppression. There was no presumption in favour of suppression outside the Youth Court, youth was not a particularly relevant factor in this case, and any effect on Ronaki-Wihapi's future employment prospects would be a consequence of the conviction, not the publication of his name. There was also a high public interest in identifying those convicted of murder, the Court of Appeal said. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .

Qantas 'contacted by potential cybercriminal' after attack on data of up to 6 million customers
Qantas 'contacted by potential cybercriminal' after attack on data of up to 6 million customers

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Qantas 'contacted by potential cybercriminal' after attack on data of up to 6 million customers

Qantas says it takes matters of cybersecurity "incredibly seriously". Photo: AFP Qantas says it has been contacted by "a potential cybercriminal" less than a week after revealing a "significant" breach and theft of data on up to 6 million of its customers from its records during a cyber attack. The airline said in a statement on Monday that it is working to verify the legitimacy of the contact and have contacted the Australian Federal Police (AFP). It has not confirmed the nature of the contact or whether a ransom was sought. A spokesperson for the AFP told the ABC that it was investigating the contact. "The airline has been highly engaged in assisting authorities and the AFP with investigating this incident," a statement said. The update comes after the airline detected unusual activity on a third-party platform used by a Qantas contact centre. Qantas said last week that it was investigating the proportion of the data that had been stolen, though it expected it would be "significant". The airline said that it was continuing to work with "specialist cybersecurity experts to forensically analyse the impacted system". That investigation has determined that the system was now secure and no credit card details, personal financial information or passport details were accessed in the breach. "We want to reassure all of our customers that there is no impact to Qantas' operations or the safety of our airline," Qantas said in a statement. On Friday Qantas chief executive Vanessa Hudson issued an apology to the airline's customers, saying the business takes matters of cybersecurity "incredibly seriously". "What I would first like to say is acknowledge the impact to all our customers and, first and foremost, I'd like to apologise to them," she said in an interview with Channel Seven in Athens. "I know this data breach is a serious concern. I know the stress that it has created for many, many millions of customers. "And so, right up front, I want to say we take this seriously and we are going to do everything that we can to communicate transparently." - ABC

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store