Erin Patterson: prosecutors to appeal ‘manifestly inadequate...

The Victorian director of public prosecutions will appeal against the sentence handed down to triple murderer Erin Patterson, arguing it is manifestly inadequate.

On Monday afternoon – the deadline for an appeal – the DPP confirmed in a statement that the appeal had been lodged, after Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years.

“We confirm that a DPP appeal has been filed on the basis that the sentence handed down to Erin Patterson is manifestly inadequate,” a spokesperson said.

Patterson was sentenced on 8 September over the murders of Don and Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of the latter’s husband, Ian Wilkinson.

The Pattersons were the parents of her estranged husband, Simon Patterson. Heather Wilkinson was Gail’s sister.

Patterson maintains that she did not mean to serve her lunch guests beef wellingtons laced with death cap mushrooms.

Confirmation of the DPP appeal came only days after lawyers for Patterson confirmed she would also contest her conviction.

Patterson, 51, is yet to lodge the appeal.

Under new guidelines being trialled in the Victorian supreme court, she has double the 28-day maximum period allowed under previous rules.

During the sentencing, Justice Christopher Beale said he had taken into consideration several aggravating factors: the substantial premeditation; her pitiless behaviour after the lunch; the suffering of her victims and those who knew them; her elaborate cover-up; and an enormous betrayal of trust.

“Not only did you cut short three lives and cause lasting damage to Ian Wilkinson’s health, thereby devastating the extended Patterson and Wilkinson families, you inflicted untold suffering on your own children whom you robbed of their beloved grandparents.”

The prosecution had submitted that, because of the horrendous nature of the crime, Patterson should never be released.

“Your counsel challenged this submission, relying principally on the harsher than usual conditions of your imprisonment which, both sides agree, are likely to continue for the foreseeable future,” Beale said on 8 September.

“Whether or not to fix a non-parole period is the main dispute which I have to determine.”

Beale found that Patterson had effectively been held in solitary confinement for the past 15 months, and there was a substantial chance she would continue to be held in those condition for years to come for her own protection.

“The harsh prison conditions that you have experienced already and the likely prospect of solitary confinement for the foreseeable future are important and weighty considerations which should count for something in the sentencing exercise.

“In my view, the only scope for making them count is by the fixing of a non-parole period.”

A hearing date for the DPP appeal has not been set.