We've just come out of the Supreme Court of Melbourne for Aaron Patterson sentencing for the murders of Doningale Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.

Erin was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole period of thirty three years.

This means that with time served, Erin will be eligible for parole in twenty fifty six.

If alive, she'll be in her early eighties.

Aaron had her eyes closed for the majority of the hearing and she showed little emotion on her face.

Ian was there like he was every single day of the trial, and he spoke outside of court.

We'll bring you what Justice Christopherville said in court today and what Ian said outside.

I'm Brook Greebert Craig, I'm Laura Placella, and this is the mushroom cook.

For the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.

I sentenced you to twenty five years imprisonment for the murder of Heather Wilkinson.

I sentenced you to life imprisonment for the murder of Gail Patterson.

I sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Don Patterson.

I sentence you to life imprisonment.

All sentences are to be served concurrently.

The total effective sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole period of thirty three years.

We're back in the studio and you've just heard the voice of Justice, Christopher Bill for the very first time.

He handed Aaron a sentence of life with a non parole period of thirty three years.

It was a big day in court, Laura, wasn't it.

It really was.

After more than two years, Erin has finally learned her fate.

And what does this non parole period actually mean?

So when we speak about sentences, you can think of a maximum and a minimum.

So the maximum is how long you will spend in prison.

For Erin right now, that's life.

But then a minimum can be set by judge to sort of offer an incentive to the criminal, to say to them, if you behave well in prison, if you try your hardest to rehabilitate, there's something for you to work towards.

For Aerin, that period is thirty three years.

She's already spent nearly two years behind bars.

So in thirty one years, which roughly takes us to two thousand and fifty six, she'll be able to lodge that application for parole, But that doesn't mean she gets to be freed straight away.

Her application will go to the parole board and they will decide if she deserves to be freed.

If they reject her application, she goes back to prison and she will never be released.

And I have to say, I was pretty surprised about the thirty three years non parole period.

What did you think?

Yeah, I'd say the same.

I was pretty surprised too.

If we do the math, by the time she's eligible for parole, she'll be eighty two.

While we heard a lot during the trial about how Aaron said she had certain health issues, largely speaking, she seems to be of okay health.

So there is a chance that when this non parole period ends, she will be alive and she can lodge that application.

And I couldn't help think today of some of the other high profile murderers that have been sentenced in Victoria and the sorts of sentences they've received.

Yeah, how does it compare to others?

At Dame Phyllis Frost's Center, there is a convicted terrorist called Momenta Shoma.

She's currently serving a forty eight year sentence and her non parole period is thirty six years, so a little bit higher than Erin's.

She was convicted of a terrorism offense, but then in prison actually attacked another inmate, so extra jail time was added onto a sentence.

But when we turn to the men, we have another triple murderer here in Victoria called Robert Farquerssen.

He was convicted of murdering his three sons by driving their car into a dam, and very similarly, just like Erin, he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non parole period of thirty three years, so that is very on par But there are also murderers who have received higher non parole periods.

Our listeners may remember the horrific murder of Jill mar She was raped and killed by Adrian Bailey.

He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but his non parole period is thirty five years.

Similarly to him the murderer of Eurydice Dixon James Todd.

He too was sentenced to a non parole period of thirty five years.

Finally, I mentioned James Gargasaulis, the Burke Street driver.

He was found guilty of six counts of murder for his senseless decision to drive a car at pedestrians in the heart of Melbourne.

He was also sentenced to life imprisonment, but his non parole period is a whopping forty six years, so you really can see that there is this range.

And Justice Bil did speak quite a lot today about how this is a balancing act and there are many considerations he has to take into account when coming to a decision on sentence.

And at the end of this episode we will play his decision in full.

But Laura, what did Justice Bill say about this case in particular?

One of the first things he said at the top was that he was not going to speculate about why Aaron chose to do what she did.

He then started recounting the evidence, really going back over that narrative we've spoken about many times previously, but along the way he was making certain factual findings.

And today he did say that he accepted Ian's evidence that Aaron served the guest meals on four gray plates and served her own on a smaller orange plate, and he said that she did that to ensure she did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal.

He also accepted Ian's evidence that at the conclusion of the lunch she did falsely tell the guests that she had been diagnosed with cancer and that she wanted their advice.

He said that her crimes demonstrated substantial premeditation and that it really did seem that she had no pity for her victims at all.

He actually said to Aaron that she could have informed the doctors that forage mushrooms were in the meal without having to admit that she included them deliberately.

He said that we will never know whether that sort of revelation would have made a difference.

He said her offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust, and that her crimes harmed a great many people, including her two own children, who she inflicted untold suffering upon by robbing them of their grandparents.

So Justice Bill said damning things about Aaron.

Why then did he set a minimum?

That's a great question, And he did walk the court through that today, and he touched on a lot of things that we heard in the pre sentence hearing a fortnight ago.

He said at Dame Phyllis Erin has been given a major offender status because she's considered to be at risk from other prisoners.

She's currently in the Gordon unit there and this is one of the most restrictive areas of the prison.

She spends at least twenty two hours a day in her cell, and one of the only people she's allowed to communicate with is the convicted terrorist we mentioned earlier.

He said that he considers Erin a notorious prisoner and told the court that he believes that there's a substantial chance she will be held in this unit for years, if not decades, given that notoriety.

He said this was an important consideration he had to take into account and ultimately that was the main reason why she was given a non parole period.

Now, the prosecution and the defense wanted two different things, and it seemed as though Justice Bill cited more with the defense.

Is that right, Yeah, he did.

To remind our listeners, the prosecution were calling for Erin to be sentenced to life without parole, which means she would die behind bars because she would never have an opportunity to apply for parole.

But on the other hand, the defense said that she should have that opportunity.

If Erin was actually sentenced today to life without parole, it would have been pretty historic In Australia, there has only been one other woman sentenced to such a term, and that was Catherine Knight in New South Wales.

For context, she murdered her partner John Price in two thousand before skinning his body, decapitating him and then cooking his head with the plan to serve that meal to his children.

A judge in her case actually described it as offending that was almost unthinkable in a civilized society.

But as we've just touched upon, Justice Bihal didn't believe Erin deserved the same sort of sentence.

And what did Justice Bell say about Ian will Conson In particular, he.

Did touch upon the victim impact statements and actually read his words back to Erin.

It was the passage where Ian offered his forgiveness to Erin.

Justice Biale said to her, you would do well to embrace it in the manner he suggests.

And Ian was actually in court today, wasn't he.

Yeah, he was, and he was surrounded by family like he has been.

But again no sighting of Simon Patterson, Erin's estranged husband.

And there was multiple members of the public that were also viewing the proceedings as well.

Yes, It was a packed courtroom, that's for sure.

We were all kind of crammed in in the media section.

There were some people that wanted to watch the sentence in the courtroom for themselves, so many more people were given the opportunity to hear directly from Justice Beale thanks to the live stream.

Yes, we could see the cameras set up behind Aaron.

Aaron didn't show a lot of emotion throughout the sentencing.

She actually had her eyes shut for majority of it.

And that was only something we could see in court.

The live stream footage was just on Justice Beal, but there really wasn't much emotion at all from her, like you just said, Brook.

But at the same time, there wasn't any emotion from her on the verdict, and there wasn't much emotion either when the victims were reading out their statements.

Now Ian actually gave a statement outside of court.

This is the first time that he has publicly spoken since Aaron was convicted, and he thanked Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, and also Health Services.

Here's what he said, good morning.

I'll not be taking any questions or making any further comments apart from this statement.

My purpose here today is to give some well earned thanks, firstly to Victoria Police, in particular the homicide Squad and the team led by Detective Stephen Eppingstall.

They made a professional, efficient and effective investigation into what happened at the lunch.

They brought to light the truth of what happened with the death of three good people.

We're grateful for their skills that brought this truth to light, and I'm also very grateful for the kindness and compassion they showed us me and my family throughout the long process that has brought us to this day.

They've done a wonderful job.

I'd like to extend gratitude too, to a team from the Office of the Office of Public Prosecutions, led by Senior Counsel Nneff Rogers.

The court processes are a little bewildering to lay people like me, and we're grateful for their expertise, their hard work, and their perseverance that has secured this conviction.

I'd also like to commend them for their kindness and compassion showed to us throughout this long process.

They have also done a wonderful job.

We're also grateful for the staff of the various public health services that played an important role in dealing with the aftermath of the lunch.

There are so many services and agencies and people involved that I can't start naming names, but please each one accept my sincere gratitude for the part that you have played in this process.

We're thankful that when things go wrong there are good people and services and systems available to help us recover.

I'd like to encourage all those involved to keep turning up and serving others.

Our lives and the life of our community depends on the kindness of others.

I'd like to encourage everybody to be kind to each other.

Finally, I want to say thank you to the many people from across Australia and around the world who, through their prayers and messages of support, have encouraged us.

I think the people of the Leaning Gather and Carumborough communities in particular, your thoughtfulness and care has been a great encouragement to us.

That's all I wish to say for now.

Please respect our privacy as we continue to breathe and heal.

Thank you for listening.

I hope you all have a great day.

So now, Laura, where do we go from here?

So the clock starts running.

Erin has twenty eight days to lodge an appeal, and this could either be an appeal against her conviction.

She could argue that the jury got it wrong and she should be given a retrial, or she can lodge an appeal against her sentence.

And what does an appeal look like then.

So we'd leave the Supreme Court and go up to the Court of Appeal and this is where a lot of legal argument would be taking place.

It would be heard before three new judges and it would be up to Erin's defense team to put forward grounds of appeal that they say would justify a retrial.

Those three judges would then come back with their decision, and if they agree that Erin should have a retrial for whatever reason, we pretty much do this whole thing again.

A new jury would be impaneled and the evidence would once again be presented to that jury.

They'd then deliver their verdicts and if it is once again a verdict of guilty, then Erin would be sentenced for a second time.

So we'll wait to see if the appeal process actually happens, but for now we'll leave you with Justice Bill's sentence just a warning it does go for about forty minutes, and because he did deliver it live on TV, we will not be censoring it.

Erin Patterson, after a long trial during which you gave evidence that the poisoning of your four lunch guests on the twenty ninth of July was an accident, the jury found you guilty of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

In other words, the.

Jury necessarily found that you deliberately served poison meal to Gail and Don Patterson and Heather and Ian Wilkinson, and that you did so intending to kill them.

Only Ian Wilkinson survived.

The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment, and for attempted murder twenty five years imprisonment.

Murder is also a standard sentence offense, and the standard sentence offense for murder is twenty five years imprisonment.

The prosecution submits, and your Council concedes, that your offending falls into the worst category of offending for these offenses, and that you should receive the maximum penalties for your crimes.

I agree for reasons that I will come to in due course.

The prosecution also submits that, having regard to the horrendous nature of your crimes, I should not fix a non parole period.

In other words, the prosecution submits that you should never have the opportunity of being being released from prison on parole.

Your council 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.

Whether or not to fixate non parole period is the main dispute which I have to determine.

These sentencing reasons consists of four parts.

First, the circumstances of the offenses, second your circumstances, third relevant sentencing law, and fourth the actual sentences.

It is convenient at this stage to mention one aspect of sentencing law.

Where the prosecution alleges circumstances that aggravate your offending, the prosecution must prove those circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

Where the defense alleges circumstances of mitigation, the defense must prove those circumstances on the balance of probabilities.

Just before I turned to the circumstances of your offenses, I note that at your trial, the prosecution conceded that they could not prove motive.

As is standard.

I directed the jury that the.

Prosecution did not have to prove motive, only the elements of the offenses, and that quote, some murders occur for no apparent reason.

The motives for such murders may only ever be known to the offenders.

Clearly, the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you committed the alleged offenses.

Only you know why you committed them.

I will not be speculating about that matter.

I will begin my discussion of the circumstances of your offenses with the fact that you were familiar with the Eye Naturalist website from at least May twenty twenty two.

That is a website on which people can post and view sightings of death cap mushrooms, amongst other things.

On the twenty eighth of May twenty two, you access the I Naturalist website and navigated to its worldwide map in relation to sightings of death cap mushrooms.

Using that map, you accessed information concerning the sighting of death cap mushrooms in Morabin, a suburb of Melbourne.

In late twenty two, a dispute arose between you and your estranged husband, Simon Patterson, regarding child support payments for your two young children who lived with you.

In December twenty two, you referred to that dispute in your communications with a Facebook messenger group with whom you shared an interest in true crime.

You were scathing in your remarks about both Simon and his parents, Don Gale Patterson.

Amongst other things, you.

Derided your father in law's suggestion that you and Simon get together and pray for your children, commenting quote this family, I swear to fucking God.

You called them quote a lost cause.

You wondered whether they had quote any capacity for self reflection at all.

You said quote fuck him, and that you suspect, suspected the best thing you could do was quote just to forget about all of them and live your life.

You accuse Simon of quote gaslighting you, and Don and Gale of using quote weasel words.

You called Simon quote a deadbeat and wondered why Gail was not quote horrified by his stance regarding child support.

According to your testimony a trial, and to a lesser extent, Simon's testimony, the dispute over child support had resolved by early twenty three on the eighteenth of April twenty three, one, Christine Mackenzie, a former poison specialist, was visiting her daughter in Locke, which is a small town about a twenty five minute drive northwest of Lean Gathera where you lived.

Miss Mackenzie observed death cap mushrooms in Locke Reserve and posted details of her observations, including photographs, on the Eye Naturalist's website.

The same day, Miss Mackenzie disposed of all the death cap mushrooms that she could find because of the danger she thought they posed, especially to young children.

On the morning of the twenty eighth of April twenty three, your mobile phone, which was never recovered by investigators, connected to certain cell towers, consistent with a possible visit by you to the Lock Reserve that afternoon.

You purchased a food dehydrator in Lean Gather.

Between the twenty eighth of April and the fourth of May three, you photographed forage mushrooms on the trays of your dehydrator.

The images were found by investigators on a Samsung tablet later seized from your home.

Doctor Tom May, a world renowned expert in fungi, gave evidence at your trial that those images were quote consistent with death cap mushrooms to a high degree of confidence.

On the twenty first of May twenty three, doctor May observed death cap mushrooms in Nilsen Street, Outram.

Outram is a small town about a twenty three minute drive southwest of Lean Gathera.

Later that day, doctor May posted details of his observations, including photographs, on the I Naturalist website.

On the morning of the twenty second of May twenty three, your phone connected to certain cell towers, consistent with a possible visit by you to Locke Reserve.

Later that morning, your phone connected to certain cell town hours, consistent with a possible visit by you to Nilsen.

Street, Outram.

On the twenty fourth of June twenty three, you hosted a lunch at your Lee and Gather home, attended by Don and Gail and your children.

You had invited Simon to that lunch, but he declined, saying in a text message quote, Hi Erin, thank you for your kind lunch invite together with mum and Dad.

I'm sorry I'll decline as I feel too uncomfortable about it.

Between the twenty eighth of June and the seventh of July twenty three, there were a series of messages between you and Gale in which you falsely represented that you had undergone a needle biopsy for a lump in your arm and an MRI.

In response to a message from Gail as to how you got on with your medical test, you messaged her on the seventh of July twenty three that quote, there's a bit to digest with everything that's come out of it.

I might talk more about it with you both when I see you in person.

On the sixteenth of July twenty three, you attended the Sunday service at the Corumborough Baptist Church, where Ian Wilkinson was and is the pastor.

After the service, you invited Gail and Don Patterson and Heather and Ian Wilkinson to lunch at your home at Gibson Street, Lee and Gatha on the twenty ninth of July twenty three.

Both the Pattersons and the Wilkinsons were surprised by the invitation, as the Wilkinsons had never previously been invited to a meal at your home.

You also invited Simon, telling him that you had invited his parents and his aunt and uncle.

You told him you had some important medical news which you wanted to discuss at the lunch, and that you did not want the children to be present.

Simon initially accepted your invitation and informed his parents that the purpose of the love was to discuss your medical issues and how to inform the children.

On the evening of the twenty eighth of July twenty three, Simon and you exchanged messages.

Simon's read quote, Sorry, I feel too uncomfortable about coming to the lunch with you, Mum, Dad, Heather and Ian tomorrow, but I am happy to talk about your health and implications of that at another time.

If you'd like to discuss on the phone, just let me know, you replied five minutes later, quote, that's really disappointing.

I've spent many hours this week preparing lunch for tomorrow, which has been exhausting in light of the issues I'm facing, and spent a small fortune on beef ive Phillip to make beef Wellington's because I wanted it to be a special meal, as I may not be able to host a lunch like this again for some time.

It's important to me that you're all there tomorrow and that I have the conversations that I need to have.

I hope you'll change your mind.

Your parents and Heather and Ian are coming at twelve thirty.

I hope to see you there.

On Saturday, the twenty ninth of July twenty three, you served your four lunch guests individual beef Wellington's, which were deliberately poisoned with death cap mushrooms.

You gave evidence at your trial that had Simon attended the lunch, you would also have served him a beef Wellington.

I accept the evidence of Ian Wilkinson that you served your guests their meals on four gray plates, while your individual beef Wellington was on a smaller orangey tan colored plate, a fact that Heather also commented on to Ian and Simon the next day.

I find that you did this to ensure that you did not mistakenly consume a poisoned meal.

I also accept the evidence of Ian Wilkinson that at the conclusion of the meal, you falsely told your guests that you had been diagnosed with cancer and sought their advice as to whether and how you should break the news to your children that you had a life threatening illness.

Not long after this conversation started, your son and his friend, who had gone to a movie, returned home.

The conversation about cancer ceased, but not before all your lunch guests, at Ian's suggestion, prayed for your health soon after they left.

Around midnight to one a m on Sunday, the thirtieth of July twenty three, all of your lunch guests fell seriously ill, suffering repeated vomiting and diarrhea.

On Sunday morning, Gale and Donn informed Simon of their conditions and called an ambulance, which took them to nearby Crumborough Hospital.

Simon attended the Wilkinsons home to find that Heather and Ian was similar unwell.

He took them first to Corumborough Hospital, but was redirected to Lean Gather Hospital.

Because of limited resources.

By way of contrast, you made a round trip of approximately two hours on Sunday afternoon to take your son to a flying lesson at Tiab.

By the Sunday evening, Don and Gale had been transferred to Dandenong Hospital.

On the morning of Monday, the thirty first of July twenty three, Ian and Heather were also transferred to Dandenong Hospital.

Later that day, Gail and Don were transferred to the Austin Hospital, as were Heather and Ian on Tuesday, the first of August twenty three.

All of them were experiencing advanced multiple organ failure.

Having learned from Simon on the Sunday that your parents in law had been hospitalized, you attended Leanngather Hospital on the Monday, complaining of diarrhea.

You did not stay long.

Shortly after a doctor indicated to you that death cap mushroom poisoning was suspected, you left, despite warnings by another doctor and nurse that your life was in danger.

You returned over an hour and a half later.

When you returned, you showed reluctance to receive treatment for suspected death cap mushroom poisoning and to organize a medical.

Assessment for your children who were at school.

Medical staff were urging you to have the children assessed because you claimed falsely that on the Sunday night you fed them the leftovers of the beef wellingtons with the pastry and mushrooms scraped off.

Eventually, you arranged with Simon to collect the children and bring them to hospital.

On the Monday morning, police recovered beef wellington remains from a bin outside your home, which were later found to contain death cap mushroom toxins.

On the Monday afternoon, you were transferred to Monash Medical Center in Clayton.

Simon brought the children there.

You and the children were kept in hospital overnight for observation.

At both Lee and Gatha Hospital and Monash Medical Center, you were asked by various people, including doctors and representatives of the Health Department and the Child Protection Service, where you would source the mushrooms for the beef wellingtons.

You said you would purchase some fresh.

Mushrooms at Woolworth's and some dried mushrooms from an Asian grocery.

You were vague about the location of the Asian grocery, claiming you would purchase the dried mushrooms several months before and that the shop could have been in one of a number of suburbs that fall within the boundaries of the city of Monash.

You denied having forage for mushrooms, a lie repeated in your recorded police interview on the fifth of August twenty three.

At your trial, you maintained the story about having sourced some of the mushrooms from an Asian grocery, but testified that in May and June of twenty three you had foraged for edible mushrooms in various places, including the Corumborough Botanical Gardens.

You testified that you had dehydrated these mushrooms and put them in a container which contained the dried mushrooms from the Asian Grocery, and that you used the dried mushrooms in that container along with the fresh mushrooms from Woolworths in the beef Wellingtons.

You testified that in this way, death cap mushrooms must have accidentally found their way into the meals served to your lunch guests.

The jury rejected this elaborate explanation.

They found that you deliberately poisoned the meals of your lunch guess.

I am satisfied that your vague story about the Asian grocery was a lie.

When you realized that their lie would not work because death cap mushrooms cannot be cultivated commercially and there were no other reports of people falling ill from mushrooms purchased at Asian groceries, you changed tack.

You concocted the story you told the jury about foraged mushrooms ending up in the container with the Asian grocery mushrooms and then accidentally ending up in the beef wellingtons.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, the first of August twenty three, you and the children were discharged from Monash Hospital.

On the morning of the second of August twenty three, you disposed of your dehydrator at a local tip, the Kunwara transfer station.

On the fourth of August.

Twenty three, investigators recovered your dehydrator from the tip.

Forensic examination revealed that the dehydrator contained traces of death cap mushrooms.

That same day, fourth of August twenty three, Heather Wilkinson, aged sixty six, and Gale Patterson, aged seventy, died from Deathcap mushroom poisoning, and Don Patterson, who was desperately ill, was given a liver transplant.

On the fifth of August twenty three, the police executed a search warrant at your home.

You handed over a dummy phone.

It was not the phone that you had been using throughout most of twenty three.

The phone which on the twenty eighth of April twenty three had connected to certain cell towers indicating a possible visit to Locke, and which on the twenty second of May twenty three, had connected to certain cell towers, indicating possible visits to Locke and Outram.

In your recorded interview following the search, you denied having foraged for mushrooms and denied owning a dehydrator.

Late on the fifth of August twenty three, Don Patterson, aged seventy, died from death cap mushroom poisoning.

Ian Wilkinson very nearly died, but gradually his condition improved.

On the twenty first of August twenty three, he was discharged from the intensive care unit to a ward at the Austin Hospital.

On the eleventh of September twenty three, he was moved to the Hardelberg Repatriation Hospital.

On the twenty first of September twenty three, he was discharged home.

He has not fully recovered.

He has reduced kidney function, ongoing respiratory issues, and reduced energy.

On the second of November twenty three, the police executed another search warrant at your home, seizing more electrical devices.

You were arrested and charged.

You have been in custody ever since.

Let me now summarize the aggravating circumstances of your offending.

Your offending which resulted in the death of three people and near death of another, involved substantial premeditation.

I am satisfied that by the sixteenth of July twenty three, when you unusually invited Simon, his parents, and his aunt and uncle to a lunch without the children to discuss your on existent medical issues, you did so with the intention of killing them all.

The dehydrator, which you purchased in late twenty three late April twenty three enabled you to preserve death cap mushrooms, which you put into the individual beef Wellington's served to your guests.

Whether those death.

Cap mushrooms came from Locke on the twenty eighth of April twenty three, or from Locke or Outram on the twenty second of May twenty three, or from another location in May or June of twenty three, as you suggested in your testimony, is in my view of no great moment.

After learning from Simon on Sunday the thirtieth of July twenty three, that some or all of your lunch guests had been hospitalized, you showed no pity for your victims.

Instead of informing those treating the Pattersons and Wilkinsons that you had used forage mushrooms, which you could have done without having to admit that you had deliberately poisoned their meals.

You repeatedly denied foraging, insisting that the mushrooms for the beef wellingtons were sourced solely from Woolworth's.

And an Asian grocery.

We will never know whether revealing the use of foraged mushrooms would have made a difference.

But the administration of the drug silibinin, which is a specific antidote for death cap mushroom poisoning, was not commenced on the thirtieth of July twenty three because at that stage the evidence regarding the type of toxin was inconclusive.

Similarly, the administration of NAC to preserve the victim's livers from toxins was not commenced until almost midnight on the thirtieth of July twenty three for Don Patterson and on the thirty first of July twenty three for the others.

The prosecution submitted that I should infer from your pitiless behavior that your intention to kill was ongoing, and that this constitutes an additional aggravating circumstance.

I accept that submission.

As the Wilkinson's.

Daughter Ruth Dubois remarked in her victim impact statement, you quote followed through on your lethal plan.

Your lunch guests each suffered severe gastro intestinal illness on the Sunday and Monday prior to being sedated and mechanically ventilated.

Their suffering was protracted, and Ian Wilkins suffers ongoing health issues.

This aggravates your offending.

The prosecution submitted that you must have anticipated that your victims would suffer in the way they did.

I am satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt, it is implausible that you would have selected death cap mushrooms without ascertaining how they would work upon your victims.

Further, the devastating.

Impact of your crimes is not limited to your direct victims.

Your crimes have harmed a great many people.

I will expand on this aggravating circumstance.

When I turned to the victim impact statements.

In addition to denying the use of foraged mushrooms, you engaged in an elaborate cover up of your guilt.

I find that you disposed of the four grade plates on which you served the poison beef wellingtons you falsely made out that you had fed your children left over beef Wellington's, with the pastry and mushrooms scraped off.

You feigned illness.

You disposed of the dehydrator soon after you were released from a hospital.

You maintained the vague story about sourcing dried mushrooms at an Asian grocery, and had the gall to tell police in your recorded police interview that you had been.

Very, very helpful to the Health department in its investigation of the incident.

You disposed of your phone and provided police with a dummy farm.

You lied to the police in your recorded police interview about various matters.

Finally, and most importantly, your offending involved an enormous betrayal of trust.

Your victims were all your relatives by marriage.

More than that, they had all been good to you and your children over many years, as you acknowledged in your testimony.

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 victim impacts statements reveal the immense and ongoing anguish suffered by your many victims, direct and indirect.

No summary could do justice to the individual and collective power of those statements.

It is not my intention here to say summarize or refer to every statement, but rather to highlight some key aspects.

Four generations of the extended Pattison and Wilkinson families have been traumatized by your crimes, not to mention their friends.

Don's mother, Martha Patterson, who is aged one hundred, made a victim impact statement.

In it, she prayed for God's healing for her family.

Gail and Heather's father, now deceased, also reached his one hundredth birthday in twenty twenty four, but tragically, only one of his three daughters, Lynn Young, whose statement was read to the court, was alive to mark that milestone with him.

And there are many references in the statements to the trauma experienced by the Patterson and Wilkinson grandchildren.

Many of your adult victims struggled not only with the loss of their loved ones and the terrible way they died, but with them distress, even guilt at their own seeming inability to ease the suffering of those close to them.

They keenly feel their limitations, and.

In particular the impossibility of shielding the youngest from the incessant discussion of the case in the media, online, in public spaces, even in the school yard.

Many also struggle to cope with work and studies, and many have experienced additional financial burdens.

There is, of course, great anger at the callousness of your actions.

To take just one example, Ian Wilkinson's sister Dorothy Dicker, questions, quote how anyone could sit there and watch those four kind and caring people eat that meal.

Your failure to exhibit any remorse pours salt into all the victim's wounds.

The children of your direct victims speak of the distress of watching their parents suffer in hospital.

For example, Donngale's son Matthew remarks, quote watching my parents suffer in hospital from severe poisoning called shock, grief and lasting trauma.

Ian and Heather's son David, remembers his mother being quote desperate for water, which he was not allowed by medical staff, and saying her quote insides were burning.

David also mentions his father's tortured experience quote black lips, gaunt, face, pained and serious expression.

At your plea hearing, Ian Wilkinson memorably read his victim impact statement to the court.

Amongst other things, he humbly expressed his great admiration and love for his wife, Heather, and his concern for others, even you.

He offered you forgiveness for what you did to him.

Quote in regards to the many harms done to me, I make an offer of forgiveness to Erin.

I say harms done to me Advisedly, I have no power or responsibility to forgive harms done to others.

However, I encourage Erin to receive my offer of forgiveness for those harms done to me, with full confession and repentance.

I bear her no ill will.

That offer of forgiveness presents you with an opportunity.

You would do well to embrace it in the manner he suggests.

In commenting on the unprecedented coverage of your case, Ian Wilkinson also made this point quote, It's one of the distressing shortcoms shortcomings of our society, that so much attention is showered on those who do evil.

And so little on those who do good.

Your lunch guests undoubtedly belonged to that company of people among us who do good.

The victim impact.

Statements make it clear that each one of them, over many years, gave of themselves generously and made lasting contributions to many many lives, and in Ian's case, continues.

To make.

All of them, inspired by their Christian faith, were deeply invested not only in their families but in their wider communities, as the statements from members of the Currumborough Baptist Church attest.

A word that is used again and again in the statements to describe your crimes is quote senseless.

Also surfaces in the statements is hope and gratitude for the care shown by others.

Don and Gale's daughter Anna Terrington writes quote, we have to say goodbye.

For now to Mum and Dad and Heather.

Don's brother Colin writes quote, As Christians, they were people of hope and sharing that hope.

My loss is not one marked by despair.

Ruth Dubais expresses her great appreciation for the efforts made and compassion shown by the medical teams.

Simon Patterson gives thanks quote for the incredibly strong, gentle patient and caring support from friends, family, schools, our own church congregation, the wider church, colleagues, work clients, neighbors, police, government officers, and our professional counselors.

We have experienced love in a special.

Away since the murders.

I will conclude my account of key aspects of the victim impact statements with what Donngale's son Matthew had to.

Say about your betrayal of trust.

Quote.

Erin was embraced as part of the Patterson family.

She was welcome and treated with genuine love and respect in a way she did not appear to experience from her own family.

Her actions represent a profound and devastating betrayal of the trust and love extended to her.

Having regard to the aggravating circumstances of your offending and the victim impact statements, I have no hesitation in finding that your offending falls into the worst category for the offenses of murder and attempted murder, as the case law makes clear.

The fact that it is possible to imagine even worse instances of such offenses does not refute that categorization.

The gravity of your offending warrants the imposition of the maximum penalties for your crimes.

I turned then to your circumstances.

The information I was provided about your personal history was minimal.

Your council simply relied on the personal history you provided in your trial testimony.

There were no psychiatric or psychological reports, provided, no references from character witnesses.

No doubt that approach to your plea hearing was based on your instructions.

But it means the account of your personal history that I am about to give is limited.

You were born in Adelaide on the thirtieth September nineteen seventy four, making you forty eight years old at the time of your offending and fifty now.

Your maiden name was Scutter.

In nineteen seventy seven, your family relocated to Melbourne, residing in Hampton.

In two thousand and four, you and.

Simon Patterson met whilst you were both employed at Monash City Council.

Simon told the jury that he was working there as a civil engineer, and you were the RSPCA's representative on the council.

By two thousand and five, you and Simon were romantically involved.

In two thousand and six, your grandmother died, leaving you a substantial inheritance moneys from her estate were distributed between two thousand and seven and two thousand and fifteen.

During those years, you would be generous with your money to Simon's siblings, providing large, no interest loans to them and their spouses so that they could purchase their own homes.

On the second of June two thousand and seven, you and Simon married.

You told the jury that your parents did not attend the wedding they were holidaying in Russia.

Soon after your marriage, you and Simon traveled around Australia and overseas for a few months before settling in Perth.

Simon got a job working for an inner city Ship council in two thousand and nine, when you were thirty five four.

Your son was born in April two thousand and nine.

You and Simon set off with the baby to explore the top end of Australia.

You reached Townsville in November two thousand and nine, at which point you parted company.

You flew back to Perth, Simon drove back with the baby.

You rented a cottage for you and the baby.

Simon rented an onsite caravan close by.

This was the first of many comparatively short term separations.

You reunited by the end of January twenty and ten.

In twenty eleven, your father died.

In that year, you also opened a second hand bookshop in Pedmington, Western Australia.

In twenty thirteen, when you were pregnant, you and Simon returned to Victoria with your son to live closer to Simon's family.

In twenty fourteen, your daughter was born.

In twenty fifteen, you and Simon separated permanently.

In two thousand and nineteen, your mother died, leaving you an inheritance.

In June twenty two, you and your children moved into a newly constructed home at eighty four Gibson, Streatley and Gathera, the home at which you served the fatal lunch on the twenty ninth of July twenty three.

You have no relevant criminal history.

You maintain your innocence.

In other words, there is no evidence of remorse.

I turn now to the conditions of your imprisonment.

As mentioned, you have been in custody since the second of November twenty three.

There were two affidavits tended relating to your conditions of imprisonment.

The first was sworn.

By a solicitor who acts for you and was based largely on your instructions.

The second affidavit was sworn by Jennifer Hoskin, Assistant Commissioner, Sentenced Management Division at Corrections Victoria, who also testified at your plea hearing.

Miss Hoskins evidence included confirmation of the following matters.

You have a quote Maximum Security you rating and quote major offender status.

Because of the nature of your crimes and your notoriety, you have been assessed as being at significant risk from other prisoners.

You have not been assessed as posing a risk to other prisoners.

You have spent approximately sixteen months of your twenty two months at Dame Phillis Frost Center in a management unit called the Gordon Unit, and the rest of the time in a protection unit called the Murray Unit.

A management unit is more restrictive than a protection unit.

You have been in the Gordon Unit continuously for the last fifteen months.

The Gordon unit has about twenty cells.

You are not permitted to mix with the other women in the Gordon Unit.

You have spent at least twenty two hours in your cell every day that you have been in the Gordon Unit.

There have been sixteen days since November twenty four where because of lockdowns, you have been confined to your cell for the entire twenty four hours per day.

The maximum period that a prisoner in the Gordon Unit could have out of their cell on any given day is four hours, but quote that wouldn't happen very often.

Your meals and medicine are currently delivered through a flap in your cell door.

There is a small concrete yard approximately two meters by one point five meters which adjoins your cell, which with permission, you may access for fresh air.

If prisoners are using the larger exercise yard which abuts your exercise yard, you may not use your small yard.

During your time in the Gordon Unit, you have barely had any contact with other individuals.

Permission is required for you to communicate with any other prisoner, which, according to your council, is complicated by the fact that you are not informed of the identities of the other prisoners in the Gordon Unit.

You currently have approval to communicate with one other prisoner in the Gordon Unit through a wire mesh when the two of you are permitted to use your respective adjoining exercise yards.

That under other prisoner is undergoing a lengthy sentence for terrorism offenses and has attacked other prisoners.

You did not ask to communicate with that person and have not communicated with her.

The suggestion that you should communicate with her was made by a corrections officer.

There is an intercom in your cell, which, if permission is granted, you may use to communicate with one other prisoner in the unit at a time, but you have not done so.

In order to attend any other part of the prison, for example, the visitors center or the library, you are driven there escorted by two corrections officers.

While theoretically prisoners in the Gordon Unit are able to access the prison library twice per week for twenty minutes at a time, you have not been able to do so because of staff shortages and a rule that you may not access the library if another is doing so.

Consequently, you have only been able to access the library a handful of times during your time in the Gordon Unit.

United Nations guidelines known as the Bangkok Rules provide that a prisoner should not be in separation for more than fifteen days at a time, but you have now been in separation continuously for fifteen months.

There are two prisoners in the Gordon Unit who have been there in excess of three years, and whilst the primary principle in the placement of prisoners is to manage and place them in the least restrictive environment necessary to ensure the safety and security of the individual prisoner and others prisoners, the least restrictive environment can be very restrictive as for your future conditions of imprisonment, Whilst your placement in the.

Gordon Unit is reviewed.

Monthly, Miss Hoskin was unable to say whether you would ever be moved from the Gordon Unit.

I infer that, given the unprecedented media coverage of your case and the books, documentaries and TV series about you, which are all in the pipeline, you are likely to remain remain a notorious prisoner for many years to come, and as such remain at significant risks from other prisoners.

I turn then to a number of relevant sentencing principles and rules.

Section five of the Sentencing Act nineteen ninety one declares that the only purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, specific and general de terrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community.

I have had regard to all of these sentencing purposes in formulating my sentences, but rehabilitation has taken a back seat because of the gravity of your offending.

Other provisions of the Sentencing Act that are of particular relevance to your case are as follows.

Under section six A to six F, you fall to be sentenced as a serious violent offender in respect of the three murders, meaning that the protection of the community is the principal purpose for which the sentences on those counts must be imposed.

Under section six F, your status as a serious violent offender must be entered in the court records.

Section eleven one provides relevantly that if a court sentences an offender to be imprisonment for the term of her natural life, the court must, as part of the sentence, fix a period during which the offender is not eligible to be released on parole, unless it considers that the nature of the offense makes the fixing of such a period inappropriate.

Section eleven a, for a, provides that where an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment, the sentence must fix a non parole period of at least thirty years, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so.

Is it inappropriate to fix a non parole period.

Would fixing a non parole period be contrary to the interests of justice?

As mentioned above, This is the main dispute that I have to determine sentence in case law establishes that, as a general rule, harsher than normal conditions of imprisonment will warrant mitigation of penalty.

There is nothing about your conduct whilst in custody which might cast doubt on the application of that general rule.

As Miss Hosking indicated, you are in a management unit to protect you from other prisoners, not vice versa, nor do you have any relevant criminal history.

In their written submissions, the prosecution conceded that your conditions of imprisonment are more burdensome than for a mainstream prisoner, and that they are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

The prosecution submitted that this is a quote relevant consideration for sentence.

In oral submissions, the prosecution conceded that this consideration was not just relevant, but quote important and quote weighty.

While still pressing for life imprisonment with no possibility of parole, you have effectively been held in con tenuous solitary confinement for the last fifteen months, and at the very least, there is a substantial chance that, for your protection, you will continue to be held in solitary confinement for years to come.

The Court of Appeal in yeat against the King referred without criticism to the observation that quote the adverse health effects of solitary confinement are well established.

I note too that Miss Hosking stated at the plea hearing that quote being separated has negative outcomes for people.

We're very aware of that.

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.

In opposing the imposition of a non parole period, the prosecution relied on the coin against Colston, where the offender was sentenced to life imprisonment without a non parole period for the savage murders of three people.

But that case makes clear that quote where there is a substantial factor pointing towards clemency.

As I consider your present and likely future conditions of imprisonment to be The fixing of a non parole period may be appropriate, even for an offender who has committed multiple murders.

Fixing a non parole period is not to undervalue the horrendous nature of your offending.

Your total effective sentence will be life imprisonment, and the period during which you will be ineligible for parole will be a very substantial one.

Please stand for the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.

I sentence you to twenty five years imprisonment.

For the murder of Heather Wilkinson.

I sentence you to life imprisonment.

For the murder of Gail Patterson.

I sentence you to life imprisonment for the murder of Don Patterson.

I sentence you to life imprisonment.

All sentences are to be served concurrently.

The total effective sentence is life imprisonment, and I fix a non parole period of thirty three years.

I declare that you have served six hundred and seventy six days by way of pre sentenced attention.

Finally, and by consent, I make the.

Disposal order sought by the prosecution.

Would you please remove miss Patterson.

So that was the sentence in full keep an eye out for more episodes to come.

Until next time, Brook