EXCLUSIVE The Trial of Erin Patterson: Australian lawyer joins new Mail podcast to explain 'unusual' dismissal of rogue juror
On the latest installment of the 'The Trial of Erin Patterson ' podcast, court reporter Wayne Flower and award-winning crime correspondent Caroline Cheetham were joined by lawyer Paul Svilans to discuss the 'unusual' dismissal of a juror from the court.
Australian mother-of-three Erin Patterson stands accused of murdering three relatives with a poisonous mushroom-laced beef Wellington meal. She has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The juror, known only as juror 84, was discharged from the case after Justice Christopher Beale said he received credible evidence the person was discussing the facts of the trial with family and friends.
Australian law requires jurors to shield themselves from outside influence throughout the trial to ensure their decision-making remains unprejudiced.
WATCH: The Trial of Erin Patterson podcast
Lawyer Paul Svilans joined 'The Trial' podcast to discuss the 'unusual' dismissal of a juror from the court. Listen here
In practice, this means avoiding media coverage of the case and refraining from discussing trial details outside the courtroom.
Lawyer Paul Svilans, from Australian firm Mark O'Brien Legal, joined 'The Trial' podcast to explain the legal basis behind the juror's removal and why it's 'unusual' for somebody to leave a trial in this manner.
'I think it's fair to say that it's certainly unusual', Mr Svilans began.
'It's not necessarily significant - but it's unusual because of the reasons given by the judge as to why the discharge was going to take place.
'The whole point about having the additional or spare jurors was to take into account circumstances that might necessitate a discharge, sickness, those kinds of things.
'It's unusual because of the reasons his Honor gave as to why the discharge would take place. Whether it's significant or not, who knows?'
Mr Svilans then explained why it's so important for jurors not to discuss details of an ongoing trial with friends and family.
'The jurors are told at the commencement of the trial that they are only allowed to consider the evidence that is laid before them in court', he said.
'It is so important that Ms Patterson has a fair trial and the only way that she can have a fair trial is if the juror makes his or her decision based only on the evidence and nothing else.
'The danger is always, if jurors are allowed to discuss evidence with people outside the jury, persons might seek to influence their decision.
'That could lead to an unfair verdict for the accused, so it is sacrosanct that jurors do not discuss the evidence with anyone else.
'They must make their decision based only on what they see and hear in court.'
The lawyer noted an important distinction made by Judge Beale as he dismissed the anonymous juror.
'The judge made no finding either way about the juror', Mr Svilans emphasised.
'All he said was that there was credible information… there's no positive finding that they were discussing the case with friends or family. He just couldn't dismiss the possibility.'
The trial continues. Erin Patterson has denied the charges against her.
Listen to the full interview with lawyer Paul Svilans on the latest episode of 'The Trial of Erin Patterson', available now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
33 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE New horror drug causing carnage in Britain: They're sold as anxiety pills, are 50 times more powerful than heroin and feel like a 'bomb in your brain'. No wonder bereft parents say: 'They're murder'
Thinking back, John Melbourne estimates that he summoned police to the family home almost 30 times in a single year because of his son. While Will's drug use was linked to mental health issues and 'wasn't a recreational thing', his unpredictable behaviour had left his loved ones afraid for their safety.
Daily Mail
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Controversial footy duo Wayne Carey and Sam Newman are BARRED from appearing at very popular event: 'It's pretty weak'
Podcasting duo Wayne Carey and Sam Newman have had two invitations to speak at a fundraising event rescinded. The controversial pair were asked to speak at the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club charity event on June 21 at the Barwon Heads Hotel. Tickets cost $60 per person, with organisers set to offer a two-course meal, raffle and special guests have been billed to join. The Event is well known for its popularity, with patrons attending the event set to travel down to watch Barwon Heads vs Torquay, dubbed 'The Battle between the Breaks'. Last year several big names from the footy world also attended, including Carlton greats Jim Buckley and Mike Fitzpatrick. But in a turn of events, the former North Melbourne and Geelong players were told not to show up, according to The Herald Sun. It is understood that committee members had not been happy with the appearance of the 'You Cannot Be Serious' podcast hosts attending the event. Tickets cost $60 per person, with organisers set to offer a two-course meal, raffle and special guests have been billed to join There was 'considerable community backlash' to the move, with committee members appearing to be unhappy by the proposed appearance of the pair. It came after the former North Melbourne player, Carey, had previously pleaded guilty to an indecent assault against a woman outside of a nightclub in 1997 before admitting to assaulting a cop in 2009. A spokesperson from the Barwon Heads Football and Netball Club explained that the committee 'decided to go in a different direction' and rescind the invitations offered to Newman and Carey. Speaking to the outlet, Newman, explained that he and his podcast co-host were not phased by the decision but added the rescinded invite was 'weak'. 'Some people thought it was not a good idea so they cancelled it, which makes no difference to Wayne and I,' Newman said. 'It does not worry me and it does not worry Wayne, I am sure. 'These people in good faith asked us to come and then some people get a little anxious about who is appearing and they have every right to withdraw the invitation. 'It is pretty weak of a committee to have the tail wag the dog when I can assure you that the response they got about Wayne coming down, and me, was overwhelming. But the tail wags the dog and in this world we live in intelligent people are being silenced so that stupid people won't feel offended.' Newman, meanwhile, caused controversy last week after he appeared to claim that the AFLW was a 'lesbian league', while also mixing up the letters of the women's football league's acronym, calling it the 'AWFL'. On Friday, Carey was also involved in a scuffle with another individual outside a Melbourne pub. The altercation was caught on video, with the 53-year-old told The Herald Sun he was harrassed by the other individual involved in the incident. Giving his version of events, Carey explained that the individual had allegedly harassed him. 'Unfortunately, there are antagonists who target you based on your experiences as a has-been footballer,' Carey explained. 'This individual is a serial harasser — and he chose to repeat his behaviour through vile and obscene slurs, again, last night.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie baffled after discovering strange markings in unopened Vegemite jar
The strange discovery of a fingerprint in an unopened jar of Vegemite has left lovers of the uniquely Australian breakfast staple baffled. The jar was purchased from a Woolworths supermarket using their online delivery service, with the shopper revealing an investigation had been launched after they brought the marking to Vegemite's attention. Sharing a picture of the jar on Reddit, users could clearly see the spread had been tampered with. 'Was really looking forward to some Vegemite on toast,' the post was captioned. 'Woolies just dropped off my order, and the vegemite opened a little too easily with the ring intact... I looked in thinking it would be fine and there's a fingerprint! 'Obviously it will be taken to the police for fingerprint analysis immediately, I can't let a crime like this go unpunished.' It remains unclear whether the fingerprint was make during the manufacturing process or at the supermarket. 'Makes me wonder if someone picked it up and it was already open then they tried to shove it back on the maybe they thought it was funny?' They wrote. The shopper concluded the post by revealing they would be forced to 'have strawberry jam on toast and that's just not the same'. Reddit users were divided over the bizarre find with some joking the marking would add 'extra flavour' while others insisting they should 'just scrape off the top layer'. However, another wrote: 'I wouldn't eat it just because it's kinda gross and you don't know what else they've done with it.' Another suggested the shopper should 'get your money back'. The shopper later shared an update confirming they had returned to the same Woolies branch and found three jars with lids that could be easily removed, suggesting a 'product defeat'. They said one of the jars also had marks in the spread similar to the one they had found in the original Vegemite. 'I've reported to Woolies, Vegemite, and the ACCC product safety line,' they added. Vegemite confirmed in a statement they were 'actively investigating' the incident. 'We are in contact with the author of a recent post shared by a Melbourne Reddit user concerning a jar of Vegemite which they believed to have been tampered with,' the statement shared with said. 'We take such matters seriously and are committed to ensuring the safety and quality of our products. There is no evidence to suggest a widespread problem. 'We are actively investigating the case and remain dedicated to upholding the high standards that Vegemite is known for.'
