In Erin Patterson’s imagined ending, she leaves a packed courtroom a free woman — cleared, celebrated and cast as courageous.
In that version of events, she has fooled them all, then goes to sleep that night privately congratulating herself for escaping consequence.
It is a scenario she has almost certainly replayed in her mind again and again.
During the eleven weeks she spent confined in the chaotic police cells at Morwell Police Station, those thoughts would have been something to hold onto.
This week, Patterson made what may be her final attempt to turn that vision into reality.
But it remains just that: a fantasy.
At 51, Patterson appears to have brushed aside the stark possibility now before her — that the case she has brought may leave her facing a future in which freedom never comes again.
In almost any other week, Patterson’s appeal against her conviction and sentence would have dominated headlines across Australia.
Erin Patterson should die behind bars where she belongs, according to Victoria’s top prosecutor
But the hearings just happened to coincide with one of the most hectic news weeks of the year.
Suddenly, Patterson’s final play didn’t matter so much.
But it mattered to Ian Wilkinson – the lone survivor of her rotten Beef Wellington lunch.
On Wednesday, he walked into the Supreme Court of Melbourne alongside the detective who brought his wife’s killer to justice.
Seated at the front of the court was Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall, who was forced to listen one last time to all of the ways the case against Patterson was supposedly bungled.
This time, the criticism was targeted at the prosecution and presiding judge, who by all accounts except Patterson’s, did an outstanding job of managing her trial to its conclusion.
Mr Wilkinson’s presence at court cannot be understated.
He is a man revered among his community – a pastor with a near saintly aura.
Pastor Ian Wilkinson and Detective Leading Senior Constable Stephen Eppingstall leave the Supreme Court of Victoria on Wednesday
Victoria’s Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC, (right) leads his team out of court on Thursday
Patterson was found guilty of the murders of Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson last year.
They died after consuming death cap mushrooms served in Beef Wellingtons during lunch at her Leongatha home on July 29, 2023.
Mr Wilkinson survived the lunch after being critically ill, with Patterson also convicted of his attempted murder.
Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Patterson to life in prison on September 8, with a non-parole period of 33 years.
Before that sentence, Mr Wilkinson did something that shocked no one who knows him.
‘I make an offer of forgiveness to Erin,’ he told Justice Beale in a pre-sentence hearing.
‘In regards to the murders of Heather and Gail and Don, I am compelled to seek justice.
‘Now I am no longer Erin Patterson’s victim, and she has become the victim of my kindness.’
A court sketch of Erin Patterson as she appeared via video link in court on Thursday
But justice, in the minds of Mr Wilkinson and the surviving victims, was ultimately denied.
Better legal minds shared similar sentiment.
Whether they would have launched an appeal against Patterson’s sentence had she not appealed first is something only they will know.
When the appeal hit court on Wednesday, much was said about Patterson’s number one ground of appeal, which centred on the jury being housed alongside prosecutors and police when they were sequestered at the conclusion of the trial.
‘So what?’ was the short, but powerful response by Justice Peter Kidd to that submission.
Daily Mail reporters from across the globe had been staying in the same hotel.
Jurors had rubbed shoulders with police and prosecutors throughout the trial in one of the few cafes in Morwell where the trial was held.
It’s a nonsense ground of appeal, in my opinion, that will be rightfully dismissed.
The Bridges on Argyle where the jury was housed alongside prosecutors, police … and Daily Mail reporters
The Bridges on Argyle was the best hotel available in the region and large enough that none of the jury interacted with anyone else involved in the trial
The remainder of Patterson’s six grounds seemed as frivolous as her first.
Patterson was represented by barrister Richard Edney – a man known largely for his love of cufflinks.
To his credit, Mr Edney did what he could with what can only be seen as a poisoned chalice.
Much of what he had to complain about was thrown back in his face on the spot by the appeal judges.
Mr Edney had raised 35 complaints about the way the prosecution had closed the case on Patterson.
At trial, she had been represented by Colin Mandy, SC – a man who left no stone unturned when it came to trying to exonerate Patterson.
Erin Patterson’s barristers Veronika Drago (left) and Richard Edney (centre) enter the court on Wednesday
‘The defence counsel was very alive to the complaints that you’re now making under ground six. So alive was he to them that he raised most of them in his final address,’ Justice Lesley Taylor told Mr Edney.
‘When one looks at the final address delivered by a very experienced trial counsel, the complaints that you are now raising, they were on the table at the time.
‘Nothing was being overlooked here, and rather than pursue other remedies, such as the prosecutor’s address has led to a mistrial, a forensic decision was made to capitalise on these issues in order to maximise the applicant’s prospects of an acquittal. So nothing’s been overlooked here.
‘And what can be inferred from that is that defence counsel not only made a forensic decision, but did not perceive at that stage that the trial was irrevocably unfair.’
It was a retort that might sum up a large proportion of Patterson’s appeal case.
The real deal of the Patterson appeal was left to last.
Putting it simply, the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions, Brendan Kissane KC, argued Justice Beale should not have set a non‑parole period at all – Patterson should have been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
If a non‑parole period was to be fixed, 33 years was manifestly inadequate given the gravity of her offending.
Justice Christopher Beale sentenced Erin Patterson to a 33-year non-parole period
Mr Kissane basically said Justice Beale’s reliance on prison conditions to justify a 33‑year non‑parole period was legally and factually flawed.
And that once you remove that error, only life without parole – or at least a much longer non parole period – was open.
As it stands Patterson will be aged 81 when she becomes eligible for parole.
The prosecution’s argument, in a nutshell, was one coldly similar to Ivan Drago’s response to questions about Apollo Creed in Rocky IV: ‘If she dies, she dies.’
‘If somebody’s in their 80s and commits an offence that requires a significant non-parole period, then the court is sentencing somebody in effect, albeit that they may well impose … a non-parole period by the statute, the court is still in effect sentencing somebody beyond what one would normally expect to be the term of their natural life,’ Mr Kissane said.
‘It has its harsh aspect about it, of course, but we accept that. But in our submission, that is not a matter that’s outweighed by the seriousness of the offending … that’s a harsh, harsh submission to make. But we submit that it’s demanded by the nature of the offending in this case.’
Top Melbourne criminal lawyer George Balot, of Balot Reilly Criminal Lawyers, told Daily Mail Patterson’s appeal was indeed fraught with risk.
‘Hypothetically, where an accused person appeals their conviction while the prosecution appeals the sentence as manifestly inadequate, they could face the possibility that the conviction appeal fails while the prosecution’s appeal succeeds, resulting in a substantially longer period of imprisonment.’ he said.
‘In a case involving multiple murders and an attempted murder, that would represent a possible risk, with potentially life-changing consequences for the accused.’
Patterson’s fate will be decided at a date to be fixed.
