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

RNZ News

20 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