It was always on the cards Aaron Patterson appealing her murder convictions over the notorious Mushroom Lunch.

Her new look legal team have now confirmed that's exactly what she will do.

But this week we heard the prosecution will also be appealing, calling her sentence manifestly inadequate.

We'll discuss all of this on the show with a special guest.

I'm Brooke Greebert Craig, and this is the Mushroom cook.

I'm back with my colleague, court reporter Laura Plasella.

Hi, Laura, Hey Brook.

It's great to be back.

And a lot has happened over the last few weeks.

Yes, it has.

So now we have two appeals at play.

Aaron is appealing and the prosecution are appealing.

That's right.

So last week Aaron appeared in court for a very brief five minute hearing.

She has a new lawyer.

His name is Richard Edney, and he told the court that Erin will be appealing her convictions, and that was the first time that her legal team had confirmed that would be happening.

But it's worth mentioning that our veteran crime reporter Anthony Dowsley, who our listeners know very well, he has been reporting for months that Aeron's team would be lodging that appeal, so it was only a matter of time until it was confirmed.

So I just mentioned mister Edney.

He appeared in that brief hearing.

But we understand that there'll be another barrister who will be brought in to actually run Erin's appeal.

His name is Julian McMahon and he is a top human rights lawyer.

He's very well known in Australia.

Yes, he represented two of the Barley Nine.

He tried to save the ringleaders Andrew Chan and Muran Sukermarin from execution.

So McMahon had previously described himself as having history of looking after people who no one else really wanted to defend.

And as I mentioned before, the prosecution are appealing.

Yes, and that was only confirmed this week.

And again Dows has actually been reporting for about a month now that the Crown prosecutors were quite underwhelmed by the thirty three year minimum sentence that Erin was handed.

Sources told him that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering an appeal, and on Monday we got that confirmation.

They have lodged their paperwork and they're claiming that Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate.

So, Laura, we've now got a special guest on the show, Lauren Cassimatis, a criminal defense lawyer and founder of Gallant Law.

Let's dyal her In.

Hi, Lauren, thank you so much for joining us.

So we've obviously got two appeals at play here.

We'll start with Erons.

What exactly is she appealing?

So Eron's council haven't released their grounds yet, so at the moment they're preparing their appeal ground.

So what that means is you don't just get an automatic right to appeal.

You have to prepare written submissions on why the court should even entertain it.

So at the moment, they're preparing those grounds and going through transcripts from the trial to see if there's anything there that they can submit.

So usually if you're appealing a conviction, which is what her team's doing, they're appealing the finding of guilt delivered by the jury.

Usually the grounds there are that one there was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict by the jury.

What that means is that on all the evidence the jury heard, they couldn't have come to that decision, it's not the right verdict, so that's probably the.

Main ground they'll run with.

Another ground is that perhaps the judge, the trial judge made an error in terms of his legal directions to the jury.

So the jury's there to analyze the evidence and apply it to the decision making process.

The judge is there to apply the law and direct them on any kind of legal point.

So if the judge's made an error there, that's appellable as well.

There's a third ground sometimes US lawyers run, but it's very rare, and that's called in comps and see of council.

So what that means is that the trial barrister running it on behalf of Miss Patterson was incompetence, so to speak.

It's very rare that one, and I doubt in this scenario.

That's the case.

I know her cur legal team very well and can't imagine they made any kind of error.

And there's also a general ground and miscarriage of justice, and that sort of ties into the saturary verdict.

So overall, the jury made a nearerror.

To the point that it's just a significant miscarriage of justice and we must quash the conviction.

We spoke about in a previous episode that Aaron had twenty eight days to lodge an appeal.

But that's changed, hasn't it.

So yeah, that's right.

So generally there's twenty eight days from the date of sentence, so not from the date she was found guilty, but from the date the judge sentenced her.

It's changed in terms of now you can apply for an extension of a further twenty eight days.

However, what hasn't changed is that often US lawyers can still seek an out of time application.

That's been the go for forever because with these sort of complex long trials, twenty eight days just isn't enough to go through all the evidence, all the legal submissions, all the directions from the judge.

We need time to go through every single document and transcript with a fine tooth comb.

So often we're seeking extensions and applying for out of time anyway, and it's not an easy exercise.

You have to satisfy the Court of Appeal that the DeLay's justified.

But yes, now there's I guess an extra kick at the ball with this extension in twenty eight days, And.

Can you explain to us what the process looks like?

So with Miss Patterson's appeal, what would happen is that once the legal team is satisfied with their grounds, they actually prepare what we call a written case.

So there's a document that puts forward all the submissions, refers to relevant case law and precedent, refers to the actual trial itself and any evidence that was given or any legal arguments made, and then that's put forward to the prosecution, to the Crown and to the court and it's then up to the court to consider whether they even are willing to grant permission to the legal team to be heard on the appeal.

So we call that leave to appeal.

So again you don't get an automatic right to appeal.

You have to persuade the court that they ought to even permit you to be heard.

So that's the leave to appeal application that's usually heard by one judge generally, And what would happen then is that if the judge is satisfied there's merit in appealing.

Sometimes the appeal might even proceed on the same day the decisions made around granting leave or it's booked off for an appeal.

And with a matter like this, I suspect we booked off for an appeal because it's just so complex and probably before three judges.

What does the timeline look here?

I know the appeal process sometimes can take a while.

Are we looking at an appeal next year?

This hearing subject to the court's diary.

Possibly could get squeezed in andto this year, but probably more likely next year.

There are many appeals on foots and the Court of Appeal is relatively small compared to the other jurisdictions, so trying to fit it in the court schedule prioritizing matters usually they prioritize the ones where the accused is in.

Custody, so that that will speed it up.

But on the other hand, I probably missed a step earlier where once the defense put forward their submissions to the prosecution, prosecution then need time totally respond.

So that's probably going to take another month as.

Well for them to then prepare submissions in response, put it forward to the court reviews it.

So I'm going to say it's likely to be next year.

What are the chances are that she gets a retrial and how common are they?

They do happen to say it's common.

Look, I have to say it's all case by case, but they definitely happened.

There's also a chance of the conviction just beingqushed without a retrial, So a decision might be made where they say, look, there was such a miscarriage of justice, there is just no evidence here to convict her.

We're going to quash the conviction and she exonerated.

Or the other alternative is that, okay, look we'll send it back to the Supreme Court and the whole trial just starts over again from scratch, so the same witnesses will be called.

It might be a different legal team with a different legal strategy, especially from the prosecution side.

But to answer your.

Question around how common they are, how likely, it really just comes down to whether they can get over the line.

In terms of the appeal, this case is a circumstantial case.

So what that means is there was no direct evidence of her intention to murder the family.

You know, another case is a defense might be around identity, did the accused actually do it, or it might be self defense.

In this scenario, none of those irrelevant.

It just comes down to whether she actually intended to kill the victims.

So when I say circumstantial case, it's not like they found diary records of her saying, oh I plan on doing this and I want to do this to them, or it's not actually made admissions around wanting to cause harm.

They piece together a puzzle pie.

So you know the fact that she didn't get significantly ill compared to the others, that's a piece in the puzzle.

The fact that she was researching mushrooms, the fact that the plates were different colors, the fact she lied to police afterwards.

It's called post defense conduct.

So all of those things you added together to create a case that the prosecution says supports the only case theory being that she intended to murder the victims.

So overall, in the court appeal they have to decide whether all of this circumstantial evidence does stack up or whether something is so flawed in the process that there needs to be a retrial.

And that puzzle analogy you gave is actually one that was mentioned in the trial too.

But now to sort of switch gears, what are the DPP appealing?

So they're appealing sentence.

So they're obviously satisfied with the conviction, but what they're not satisfied with is, I guess the severity of the sentence.

So their legal argument is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.

So from the defense perspective, if they would appeal sentence, they would argue the sentence is manifestly excessive, it's too severe, the prosecutors.

Saying it's too lenient.

So she got a non parole period of thirty three years.

That means she's eligible to be released on parole once she's served thirty three years in custody minus the time she's done on remand so the court always deducts time for the period that prisoners remain in custody while the case is on foot and is yet to be finalized.

When they're eligible for parole, it doesn't necessarily mean they will come out.

So the parole board still has to consider the progress prisoners of mate in custody, and it might be that they say, look, Nut, we still want you to do another couple of years, and they will reassess, so she doesn't automatically.

Get released at that thirty three year mark.

But what the prosecution is saying is that, well, we still want her to be ineligible for more years, We want her to spend more time in custody before she's eailable, or we don't want her to be eligible at all.

We want her to do a straight life sentence, So that's their argument.

In terms of the grounds, usually what happens is in their ridden grounds, and similar to the commction process, they've got to satisfy the court that there's enough to even be permitted to appeals, so to get leave.

In those grounds, they'll be saying that perhaps the trial judge didn't focus on relevant factors in the sentence in consideration, or that perhaps the judge put too much emphasis on one factor or not the other.

So, for example, for the prosecutions perspective, one significant factor.

Is that there's no remorse.

When somebody runs a trial, it can't then be said that they are remorseful for what happened, and that's something that's taken into account when somebody pleads guilty and they're actually given a reduction on sentence.

So a big factor for them is that there's no remorse.

The second one would be probably that what's aggravating in terms of the crime.

The features of the crime is that she planned it.

It was all pre planned and again she lied.

So if the trial judge hasn't put enough emphasis on the lack of remorse or hasn't.

Again put enough weight on the fact that she lied.

For example, they might say that the sentence is too lenient and that the judge needs to.

Revisit those factors.

Or it could be that the trial judge placed too much weight on Miss Patterson's personal circumstances.

So I know that the judge really took into account the fact that this is high profile in the media, and she was suffering in custody more so than other prisoners because of all the attention she was getting.

Then she was essentially put into isolation, and I can tell you the conditions are just shocking when you're in isolation.

So the judge is taken into account that burden on her and that's suffering in custody, the fact that she'd be suffering more than others.

The judge also took into account her age, so essentially she'll.

Be an elderly woman when she is.

Eligible to be released, and the fact she had no prior history.

So all of those factors.

The prosecute might say, well, the judge just put too much weight on factors in her favor and needs to I guess shift things in terms of the balance in exercise, and you know, weighing up what's appropriate.

So with two appeals at plate, will they be happening at the same time or what does that look like?

They probably will from a court resource financial perspective, they'll probably want to run them together.

So what will happen is defense will submit their grounds on the conviction.

The prosecution will submit grounds on the sentence being lenient.

But then we'll also respond to the conviction argument and say that the conviction stands, it was the right decision, there was nothing wrong with the process or the verdict.

Defense will respond to the sentence and say the sentence is fair, it wasn't lenient, and they'll also argue why the sentence shouldn't be increased.

So the prosecution will be argument should be increase, Defense will be arguing that it should remain the same.

I really doubt defense will be arguing that it should be decreased.

I don't see any merit in that, and I really doubt they'll do that.

So it does kind of run together because the court has to entertain the responses as well as the original submissions.

They'll also make submissions probably on whether there needs to be retrial, whether conviction's quashed.

So there might be some grounds around that as well, in terms of the delay already and having this case hanging over Ms.

Patterson's said, and not just her head, but the victim's families, that the witnesses that have to recount all the tragic circumstances.

It might be that the court spares them of that process potentially.

So you touched upon Aaron's conditions in prison, Can you talk our listeners through what it is like at Dane Phillis Frost.

So Dane Phyllis, it's obviously in all female prison, you have whole range of prisoners in there in terms of security reso.

You've got women in there that are on remand's awaiting trial.

That means they haven't been proven guilty of a crime yet, and in fact, there would be many women in there that are actually innocent.

Then you've got women in there that have been convicted or pleaded guilty of a crime, but they're considered low risks.

So for example, it might be that.

They've committed theft, but it didn't involve any violence or any harm to anyone, so to speak, like it's a financial harm, but there's no safety risk to someone mentally or physically, and then you've got other prisons in there that are high risks.

So for example, they have been convicted of a murder, they're considered extremely violent, or they're emotional or cognitive or intellectual or mental health condition means that they might be.

A psychological risk to others or even to themselves.

So some women are prone to self harming in there, or harming others.

So you've got this whole melting pot.

Whereas with the male prisons, there's a lot of different units, a lot of different facilities that not segregate, but you know, there's one facility that's for low risk offenders, and then there's another facility just for people in remind that are still innocent, and then there's another facility for high risk offenders.

So dan Phyllis, everyone's together.

It's one being melting pot.

I can tell you that a lot of my female clients have said that they have felt very threatened in They're very unsafe and very vulnerable.

You know, they really are fending for themselves, trying to play the game so they don't become bait, so to speak.

You know that there's the big dogs in custody and you've got to appease them just to protect yourself.

But look, there's some positives.

There's a lot of forensic case workers and psychologists in the jails that really genuinely care about the prisoners, and I know they work really hard to give them some sort of therapeutic treatment and support.

They've got some programs in custody, like educational programs, they can actually do tape courses, they can work in the kitchen and earn a bit of an income, and I know some of my clients that work in the bakery section really enjoyed.

It keeps them busy and productive.

But overall it's a frightening experience.

And even one day in jail is enough to break someone.

So thirty three years, I could tell you right now, her quality of life has already deteriorated, and I can't imagine what a quality of life will be like on release.

So for those angry about the fact that she is eligible for prole then I think it is a life sentence.

Nonetheless, Well, thank you so much for answering all of our questions.

I just wanted to ask you, are there any other thoughts you had about this case that you wanted to share.

I think just in terms of the attention it's had by the community and the media.

I mean, I think everyone loves who'd done it, and everyone loves a mystery, and I know in this case it's not necessarily who'd done it, but it did trigger people's minds around what on earth was she thinking?

Or did she actually do it?

Did she mean to do it?

So I think it's a great thing that now the community gets more exposure to the court system and how cases operate and what sort of how defense and prosecution all so run their case.

I think from an educational point of view, I'm glad to see that it's out there in the media.

But I just also want to remind people that again we're dealing with people and where they spoke this fire.

Not necessarily in criminal law, someone has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime.

And whilst the jury found miss Patterson guilty here, there were holes in the case.

There were weaknesses.

We didn't have a motive, which usually these sort of matters that there is one, and some things just didn't stuck up.

You know.

Again, there was no sort of financial incentive for her to do this, or there was no hatred.

So I think when people.

Start getting a little bit upset around outcomes, do visit court cases a bit more.

Do follow some of these more live recordings, because it gives you a better insight into how the justice system works, whilse defense.

Lawyers do what we do.

And just reminding again that people are innocent before proven guilty.

It's not the other way around.

And sometimes people aren't guilty of what's being alleged.

And I think it's really important to just show some compassion and empathy for how scary an experience it is for someone on trial that hasn't committed a crime.

Thank you so much, Lauren.

Oh, thank you so much for having me.

It's been great.

Before we go, there's one other little update in Aaron's case.

There is you and I Brook.

We wrote a story the other week about Aaron's car, that notorious red MG, being up for sale.

We found the advertisement on Facebook marketplace and we ran our checks and balances and we figured out that it is Eron's car.

Yes, because the description actually didn't say that it was.

No, there was no mention at all of Erin in that advertisement.

It was put up by her power of attorney Ali Pryor, who we have previously discussed on the podcast, and it was listed for eighteen and a half thousand dollars.

And I'll read from the ad now price to sell quickly telling my mg ZST Corps twenty twenty three model with just twenty two thousand kilometers on the clock.

Car is an excellent condition, drives beautifully, super economical and still feels like new, perfect little suv, stylish, reliable and cheap to run.

Only selling because of an upgrade.

And as soon as you and I started making inquiries about it, the ad got taken down very quickly.

May I add, And you spoke to Miss Prior, didn't you?

Yes, I did so.

I had about a ten minute conversation with Miss Pryor on the phone and she said that Erin murdering three people and this is quote had nothing to do with me selling her car.

This is another quote.

She said, I have power of attorney to sell her car if that's what I'm instructed to do.

It's a private ad selling a car.

So just to remind our listeners, this was the car that Erin famously spoke at the front of in the week after the deadly lunch Brook.

You were there recording Erin as she was speaking to the media.

Yes, I think everyone will remember that footage of her crying crocodile tears in the front of her car.

And it was also the same car that Aaron used to go to the Kunwora tip on not one but two occasions, the second time dumping the dehydrator.

And we've mentioned this before, but currently Aaron's house is restrained, which means she can't sell it, but the car is not restrained, so it remains one of her only other assets that's worth selling to make a little bit of cash.

So the appeals process is definitely happening on both sides, so we're guaranteed to see more updates in this case.

To stay updated, go to Heraldsign dot com dot au or watch out for future episodes.