The hotel booking mix-up that could free mushroom murderer

A hotel booking error could potentially lead to the release of Erin Patterson, convicted in the "mushroom murders." Last July, as hundreds gathered in Australia's Gippsland region for the national table tennis championships, one of the country's most significant criminal cases was unfolding nearby. This tournament inadvertently contributed to a situation that Patterson's lawyers now claim "fatally undermined" the fairness of her trial.

The jury that found Patterson guilty was meant to be isolated from the intense media coverage during deliberations. However, a shortage of accommodation in the region, made worse by the table tennis competition, resulted in the jury sharing a hotel with members of the prosecution, a key police witness, and journalists. Patterson's legal team is now seeking to overturn her convictions on appeal.

"The only proper remedy is... the order for a re-trial," stated Richard Edney, Patterson's barrister.

The fatal lunch, hosted at Erin Patterson's Leongatha home in July 2023, involved poisonous mushrooms, leading to three deaths and one severe injury. This event brought the quiet Gippsland region into the global spotlight. The community of Korumburra, where the victims were well-known, was engulfed in grief, while Leongatha, Patterson's residence, was gripped by shock. Morwell, the trial's location, and surrounding towns were overwhelmed by journalists, lawyers, and spectators. The pervasive discussion about the case led the trial judge to decide that the 12-member jury needed protection from this intense public scrutiny.

In Australia, jurors are strictly required to consider only evidence presented in court and to discuss the case only among themselves, with external communication forbidden even after a trial concludes. To prevent contamination and gossip, Justice Christopher Beale decided to sequester the jury once deliberations began. This relatively rare measure meant they would stay in supervised accommodation with minimal contact with the outside world until a verdict was reached.

However, finding suitable accommodation for the jury and their keepers became a logistical challenge. As the trial extended beyond initial expectations, securing lodging became a constant struggle. The week the table tennis tournament arrived, coincidentally the same week the jury retired to deliberate, exacerbated the accommodation shortage into a severe scarcity.

At 8:28 AM on Monday, July 7, an email from the judge's chambers informed the lawyers that the lead detective investigating the murders—a crucial trial witness—and two prosecution solicitors had been staying at the same hotel as the sequestered jury. The email noted that jurors had exclusive use of a separate floor and ate meals in a conference room, away from other guests. Common areas like the lobby were shared, but the jury keeper who reported the issue stated there had been no interaction between the jury and anyone from the prosecution.

Justice Beale acknowledged the accommodation shortage but deemed the situation "obviously undesirable." Approximately two hours later, the prosecution responded, admitting they had known about the situation for several days. Their email stated that the detective "took steps to avoid common areas from the point that he became aware that [the jurors] were there." The prosecution also tried to find alternative hotels for staff upon learning of the overlap with the jury for a single night, but could not secure rooms for two solicitors, who also reportedly took steps to avoid "incidental contact."

However, another message from the judge's chambers that afternoon quickly overshadowed the hotel issue: the jury had reached their verdicts, finding Patterson guilty on all counts.

Patterson's lawyers are now arguing that the hotel mix-up constituted a "fundamental irregularity" that "fatally undermined" the integrity of the verdicts. "We would describe... it as catastrophic," Patterson's appeal counsel, Edney, told Victoria's Court of Appeal this week. "What occurred here was an inexplicable and perhaps still unexplained failure in the process."

Edney highlighted that the defense was kept unaware of the situation for several days longer than others. They did not immediately seek a mistrial last July but instead twice requested the state's juries commissioner to investigate in the weeks following the verdicts. Both requests were denied, with reasons not made public, according to the barrister.

A year later, Edney argued, there remains a "vacuum of evidence" regarding what transpired during "the most critical week" of the trial. There is no CCTV from the hotel, no sworn statements from those who shared it with the jury (including an unknown number of journalists), and only two brief emails from last July to describe the events. Edney also raised a media report from the time—dismissed by prosecution lawyers as "unverified" and "seemingly inaccurate"—suggesting the mix-up led to "people hiding in doorways to avoid contact" and "skipping breakfast."

Justice Peter Kidd questioned the significance of these claims, stating that jurors routinely encounter other parties in corridors or cafes in any criminal trial, but are under constant supervision by jury keepers sworn to prevent improper communication. Edney conceded there was "no evidence" of direct communication but argued that even innocent contact, such as merely seeing the detective or solicitors, could have led to "subconscious influence." Edney repeatedly mentioned that the hotel had "windows," a point countered by a judge as a common feature of hotels.

Patterson's team cited two cases: one where jurors were discharged after a defendant's relative offered a lozenge to a coughing juror, and another where a retrial was ordered because jurors took a taxi without a jury keeper escort.

The prosecution's response was straightforward. "The system worked as it was intended to work," said Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC. He asserted that the jury was continuously supervised, and any potential problem was immediately addressed to prevent it from becoming an actual issue. The jury keeper, lead detective, and prosecution all denied any contact. "The evidence in this case is that there was no interaction between any other person and the jury," Kissane stated, noting that other cases cited by the defense involved actual contact, which was "not the situation here."

Patterson has seven appeal grounds, including rulings on evidence and alleged prosecutorial unfairness, but this particular argument is, by the defense's own admission, unprecedented. Edney emphasized that the perception of interference is as crucial as actual interference, quoting the trial judge's initial address to prospective jurors: "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done."

The three judges are now deliberating on Patterson's appeal and a prosecution argument to revoke her parole period. Their decisions will be announced at a later date.