The jury has left the courtroom to begin its deliberations.
One juror swore an oath and the others took an affirmation not to discuss the evidence with others outside the jury.
“Whatever verdicts you reach ... they must be unanimous verdicts,” Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale told the group.
“I now ask you to retire and consider your verdicts.”
Accused killer Erin Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.
Two men have been balloted off the jury in the final step before deliberations can begin, reducing the panel of 14 jurors to 12.
At the start of the trial, in late April, the jury comprised 10 men and five women before one man was discharged, leaving nine men and five women.
The trial is being held in the Latrobe Valley law courts in Morwell.Credit: Jason South
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale today told the jurors they weren’t to interact with their colleagues who were balloted off until after the trial.
“Can I say a very warm thank you to those people who will be balloted off,” he said.
“I don’t know if you’ll feel relieved or frustrated, but … you have made an important contribution to the administration of justice. I think the community would be very grateful too.
“The only person who can’t be balloted off is the foreperson.”
The numbers of two jurors were then pulled from a small brown wooden box, as part of the ballot system.
That means the jury that will deliberate Erin Patterson’s charges comprises seven men and five women.
After five days of instructing the jury, Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale has reached the third and final part of his charge.
This, Beale said, related to the fact the jury must come up with a unanimous verdict when deciding the charges against accused killer Erin Patterson.
Erin Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.Credit: Jason South
“You must all agree on it,” he said.
“To find the accused guilty of charge one, you must all agree she is guilty of that offence. In exactly the same way if you are to find her not guilty.
“However this requirement doesn’t mean you have to reach your verdict for the same reasons.”
The jurors were told once they reached a verdict, they could push a buzzer for the tipstiff (the officer of the court), who would arrange for the court to reconvene. This was the same process if the jury had a question at any time during court hours.
“You should only discuss the case with each other,” Beale said. “And you should only do that when you’re all together in the privacy of the jury room.”
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale is moving onto part two of his charge. He joked to the jury that he’s reached page 329 of his 365 pages of his instructions.
After a break, he began outlining the list of issues that are up to the jury to decide.
They are summarised below:
“The prosecution has to prove intention,” Beale told the jury.
An accused person is presumed to be innocent unless, and until, they are proven to be guilty, Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale has reminded the jury.
“That is absolutely fundamental,” Beale said.
Prosecutor Nanette Rogers, SC.Credit: Jason South
He said the prosecution had to satisfy the jury that Erin Patterson was guilty of the charges she faced, and that the accused woman didn’t have to prove anything.
Defence counsel Colin Mandy, SC.Credit: Jason South
When it comes to motive, Beale said, in some cases there might be evidence of a motive to murder, whereas in others there was no evidence of a motive and it remained known only to the offender.
In Patterson’s case, Beale said, the prosecution agrees there is no motive, while the defence argues their client had no good reason to kill her lunch guests as they were good people and their client had a good relationship with them.
“The prosecution does not have to prove motive in order to prove its case,” Beale told the jury.
“It’s the allegations of murder and attempted murder the prosecution has to prove, nothing else.”
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale is now taking the jury through the four elements of the charges of murder and attempted murder.
Erin Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.
From left: Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson died after ingesting poisonous mushrooms. Ian Wilkinson (right) survived after spending months in hospital.
Beale told the jurors that to find the prosecution had proven Patterson was guilty of murder, they had to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of four elements:
“It’s in dispute that she intended to kill or cause really serious injury to Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson,” Beale told the jury.
He said the jury must look at the accused woman’s actions before, during and after the July 29, 2023 meal.
“There are three charges of murder and you have to consider the evidence in relation to each count of murder, understanding what’s in dispute: was it deliberate, serving up a poisoned meal; and [whether] that was done with murderous intention.”
Beale also takes the jury through the four elements of the charge of attempted murder. To find Patterson guilty on that charge, the jury had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Patterson:
“What’s in dispute here is that she deliberately served him a poisoned meal,” Beale told the jury.
“It’s the defence case that it was an accident.
“Ian Wilkinson came very close to dying. Unlike murder, state of mind is nothing less than an intention to kill. Intention to cause really serious injury doesn’t cut it for attempted murder.”
The final alleged lie the prosecution argues Erin Patterson told her lunch guests was that she was planning to have gastric bypass surgery, Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale has told the jury.
The prosecution alleges Patterson lied to her guests when she told them at the July 29, 2023 lunch that she had an upcoming medical procedure, or upcoming appointment booked, for gastric weight loss surgery.
Erin Patterson has pleaded not guilty to three charges of murder and one of attempted murder.Credit: Jason South
In her evidence, Patterson told the jury she hoped her family could help with logistics around her children and wouldn’t have to tell them the real reason.
“Gastric bypass surgery. I had an appointment for early September, yes,” she told the jury.
The prosecution put to Patterson in cross-examination that the clinic she mentioned, the Enrich Clinic, does not offer this type of surgery.
Patterson’s legal team told the jury she made an appointment and was “honestly mistaken” about what for.
Beale told jurors that if they found the accused lied about something, they could use that to help decide if they believed the other things she said in her evidence.
“That’s not to say because you found she lied about one factor that she lied about everything else ... but [you] can use it to help determine the truthfulness,” the judge said.
“It’s for you to decide what significance to give these alleged lies if you find them to be lies.
“These alleged lies are only relevant in assessing her credibility.”
Erin Patterson’s alleged lie about her having cancer is now the focus of Justice Christopher Beale’s instructions to the Supreme Court jury.
Beale said the accused woman, in her evidence, told the jury that she’d thought she had ovarian cancer years earlier. Patterson said in her evidence: “I led them [her lunch guests] to believe I might be needing treatment regarding that in the next few weeks or months.”
Beale told the jury that Patterson later said in her evidence: “I didn’t say that I received a diagnosis, no.”
Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving guest, said that at the July 29, 2023 lunch, Patterson told the group she had cancer and while no specific course of treatment was outlined, he understood that maybe the treatment wasn’t yet specified.
Beale said Patterson’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, told the jury that during a conversation with his parents at Korumburra Hospital on July 30, 2023 – the day after the beef Wellington lunch – his father, Don, said the accused had “a positive cancer test”.
“They’d found, I think, ovarian cancer in Erin,” Simon Patterson told the jury.
The prosecution alleges Erin Patterson lied to Ian Wilkinson about the threat to her life, and also told the jury to reject her claim she didn’t say she had a “diagnosed cancer”.
The defence says Erin Patterson and Wilkinson’s accounts are not too far apart, and maintains their client said she might have needed treatment. The defence also told the jurors they had to consider the frailty of memory.
Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale is instructing the jury about the alleged lies Erin Patterson told her lunch guests before she had them over for a beef Wellington meal on July 29, 2023.
The prosecution alleges Patterson lied about the reason she hosted the lunch when she said, in her evidence, to the jury that “the kids and I had such a good time seeing Nanna and Papa on the 24th of June [2023].”
Erin Patterson and Simon Patterson.
Simon Patterson, in his evidence, said his estranged wife approached him at church and told him it was important he be at the lunch as she had important medical news and wanted advice on how to break it to her children.
“And would I be able to come,” Simon Patterson said. “She said she was keen for it not to be with the kids. Because she wanted to talk about this … serious matter.”
Beale said the accused woman texted Simon Patterson when he cancelled attending the day before the lunch, and told him she’d “spent a small fortune” on eye fillet steaks and that it was important for him to be there, hoping he would change his mind.
“I hope to see you there,” Erin Patterson wrote in her text.
Defence barristers Sophie Stafford (left) and Colin Mandy, SC, outside court on Monday.Credit: Jason South
Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving guest, said in his evidence: “After the lunch she said she had cancer. She was anxious about telling the kids, she was asking our advice about that. At that moment I thought: ‘This is the reason we’ve been invited to the lunch’.”
Child protection worker Katrina Cripps told the trial she understood “a medical issue” was the reason for the lunch.
Beale told the jury the prosecution alleged the accused lied when she said in her evidence that she invited the guests to lunch because she’d had a good time with her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, on June 24, 2023, and wanted to show Ian Wilkinson’s wife, Heather, her garden.
“This was not a matter that [defence counsel] Mr [Colin] Mandy discussed during his closing address,” Beale said.
Welcome to our coverage of day 40 of the triple-murder trial of accused mushroom cook Erin Patterson in Morwell, where Supreme Court Justice Christopher Beale is in the final stretch of giving his directions to the jury.
“Today you will be retiring to consider your verdicts,” Beale told the jury.
Clockwise from left: accused killer Erin Patterson and her guests who died after the 2023 lunch, Heather Wilkinson and Gail and Don Patterson.Credit: Matthew Absalom-Wong
In a criminal trial, a judge’s directions to a jury – known as a charge – are their final instructions about what jurors need to consider when deliberating their verdict.
Ian Wilkinson, the sole surviving lunch guest.Credit: Jason South
In Patterson’s trial, Beale began his charge on Tuesday and has summarised the main arguments of the defence and prosecution teams, and highlighted key evidence from the trial.
Patterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering her in-laws, Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, by serving them death cap mushrooms in a beef Wellington lunch at her Leongatha home on Saturday, July 29, 2023.
Her in-laws and Wilkinson died in the days after the meal from the effects of mushroom poisoning. Heather’s husband, Ian Wilkinson, survived after weeks in hospital.
Erin Patterson has also pleaded not guilty to one charge of attempted murder. She says the deaths were a terrible accident.
Beale is today continuing to instructing the jury, including the directions regarding the requirement that the jury’s verdict must be unanimous.
There are 14 jurors, so at the end of the judge’s instructions, the number of jurors will be reduced to 12 using a ballot system. The panel of 12 will then deliberate their verdict.