Defence urges jury to guard against desire to punish Erin Patterson for causing deaths at mushroom lunch

The Guardian

6 hours ago

Erin Patterson's barrister has warned the jury to 'fiercely guard' against the instinctive desire to punish her for causing the deaths of her lunch guests, saying there is no reason why she wanted to harm them.
Colin Mandy SC, has started his closing address in Patterson's triple murder trial at the Latrobe Valley law courts in Morwell.
Patterson, 50, is charged with three counts of murder and one of attempted murder over the alleged poisoning of four lunch guests with beef wellingtons served at her house in Leongatha on 29 July 2023.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering the relatives of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson – his parents, Don and Gail Patterson, and aunt, Heather Wilkinson – and attempting to murder his uncle, Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband.
She has told the jury she accepts death cap mushrooms were in the meal, but says they were included accidentally.
The prosecution finished its closing address earlier on Tuesday.
Just as Nanette Rogers SC outlined four themes that would underline the prosecution's closing address, Mandy told the court that he would also touch on four points: the 'flawed approach' taken by the prosecution to the evidence, the honestly mistaken memory of witnesses, the burden of proof, and the duty of fairness incumbent on the prosecution.
Mandy said it was clear that Ian Wilkinson, who gave evidence earlier in the trial, was 'a kind and good person'.
'And there's every reason to believe Don and Gail and Heather were as well,' Mandy said.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
'When the family members were giving evidence, there was sadness in this court room.
'It's a natural response to be moved by that.'
He said it was important for the jury to acknowledge that they felt a 'deep empathy' for the family, and their 'terrible' suffering.
Mandy said the jury could have an 'instinctive desire' to feel 'these were good innocent people and whoever caused their deaths must be held to account', but said they must discount that reaction.
'We know that the actions of Erin Patterson caused the deaths of these three people and the serious illness of another,' Mandy said.
'A jury has to fiercely guard against that type of reason, that type of reaction. Because you're judges.
'You have to put your natural human emotions, when confronted with this type of situation, to one side.'
Mandy said it was true that motive did not have to be considered in order for the jury to reach their verdict, but said the prosecution had attempted to 'flesh out something which you might consider to be some kind of reason' for the alleged murders.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'What the prosecution said of course is absolutely correct, his honour will say it again, a prosecution does not have to prove a motive, only the elements of the offences.
'But one of those elements is intention … they have to prove that's what Erin Patterson meant to do.
'Proof of a motive, or a fact of a motive, can be very important for intention.'
He said there was no doubt that Gail and Don had a loving relationship with Patterson's children.
'Why would she take loving grandparents away from her children?' he asked.
Mandy started his address by framing the choice before the jury in simple terms.
'Members of the jury, your consideration of the evidence in this trial comes down to two simple issues that you have to determine. First, is there a reasonable possibility that death cap mushrooms were put into this meal accidentally?
'Second, is it a reasonable possibility that Erin Patterson did not intend to kill or cause serious injury to her guests?
'If either of those things are reasonable possibilities, on all of the evidence, then you would have a reasonable doubt.'
Rogers finished her address earlier on Tuesday afternoon, urging jurors to dismiss Patterson's account that she regularly foraged and ate mushrooms between 2020 and 2023, and that she accidentally added them to the beef wellingtons.
'She had to come up with something new. You should simply disregard this new claim that this was a horrible foraging accident as nothing more than an attempt by the accused to get her story to fit the evidence compiled by the police.
'You can reject that there is any possibility that the accused accidentally picked death cap mushrooms to put in the beef wellingtons … she knew exactly what she was looking for, and she targeted her search accordingly.'
On motive, Rogers said the evidence did not demonstrate that Patterson had one, but that the jury should not be concerned about this question, including why she would 'have an axe to grind' with Ian and Heather, given she hardly knew them.
'It's only natural you're going to wonder about these things, however don't let this distract you from the question you must answer as a jury.
'The question is not why she did this.
'The question is, has the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, proven that the accused did this [intentionally].'
Justice Christopher Beale told the jury in the case that he did not expect to complete his charge, or directions to them, until Tuesday afternoon at the earliest. The charge occurs before the jury retires to consider its verdict.
The trial continues.