16-05-2025
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.
