Erin Patterson is appealing her conviction for murdering three people by serving a cooked lunch that included lethal mushrooms. Photo \/ Getty Images<\/p>\n
Australian toxic mushroom killer Erin Patterson launches an appeal on Wednesday against her conviction in a triple-murder case that made headlines worldwide.<\/p>\n
The 51-year-old was found guilty last year of murdering her husband\u2019s parents and an elderly aunt in 2023 by serving them a beef Wellington lunch laced with lethal
\n death cap mushrooms.<\/p>\n
Patterson was also convicted of the attempted murder of her husband\u2019s uncle, a small-town local pastor who survived the beef-and-pastry dish after weeks in hospital.<\/p>\n
A judge sentenced her to life imprisonment, eligible for parole after 33 years.<\/p>\n
Over two days, three judges at the Court of Appeal in Melbourne will hear two appeals: Patterson\u2019s attempt to overturn her conviction and the prosecution\u2019s demand for a stiffer sentence.<\/p>\n
She has asked to watch the appeal by live video link from her prison, the maximum-security Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in Melbourne\u2019s western suburbs.<\/p>\n
Patterson claims she suffered several counts of \u201csubstantial miscarriage of justice\u201d because the trial judge erred in deciding what evidence could be presented.<\/p>\n
Some evidence accepted by the judge \u2013 relating to Facebook messages, cell towers and posts of death cap mushroom sightings \u2013 was not relevant or unfairly prejudicial to her case, her lawyer said.<\/p>\n
Other evidence about mushroom images on a memory card in Patterson\u2019s home was wrongly excluded, the lawyer said in an appeal submission in November last year.<\/p>\n
A \u201cfundamental irregularity\u201d also took place while the jury was sequestered that \u201cfatally undermined the integrity of the verdicts\u201d, he argued, without giving further details.<\/p>\n
Patterson\u2019s solicitor additionally accused the prosecution of an \u201cunfair and oppressive\u201d cross-examination during the trial.<\/p>\n
Before listening to the arguments in detail, the Court of Appeal judges must decide whether the grounds justify granting Patterson leave to challenge her conviction at all.<\/p>\n
On the other side, the prosecution has appealed against Patterson\u2019s sentence, saying the non-parole period of 33 years imposed by the judge was \u201cmanifestly inadequate\u201d.<\/p>\n
The judge erred in finding there was a substantial chance Patterson would be held in solitary confinement for years to come, and this \u201cinfected\u201d his decision, the prosecution argued.<\/p>\n