Lead: On 8 September 2025 in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Erin Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 33 years after being found guilty of murdering three relatives and attempting to murder a fourth by lacing beef Wellingtons with death cap mushrooms in 2023. The three life sentences (for the murders of Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson) and a concurrent 25‑year term for attempted murder (Ian Wilkinson) will be served concurrently. The prosecution had sought life without parole; the defence accepted a life term but sought a minimum term that might allow release in old age. Justice Christopher Beale described the crime as an “enormous betrayal” and rejected Patterson’s account of buying the mushrooms from a grocer.
Key Takeaways
- Erin Patterson, aged 50, received a life sentence with a 33‑year non‑parole period on 8 September 2025; she will be eligible to apply for parole in 2056.
- The convictions concern the 2023 poisoning deaths of Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson, and the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson.
- All custodial terms were ordered to run concurrently; the attempted‑murder term is 25 years concurrent with three life terms.
- The prosecution urged life without parole; defence counsel accepted a life term but asked for a minimum term to permit possible release in Patterson’s 80s.
- Patterson was returned to the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre after sentencing and has already spent time in custody since her 2023 arrest, which is factored into her sentence.
- Large public interest surrounded the hearing: a packed public gallery, waiting crowds outside the Supreme Court and extensive media coverage.
- Legal commentators compared the case’s public attention to high‑profile Australian trials in recent decades and flagged a likely short window for any appeal.
Background
The events at the centre of this case began with a 2023 family lunch at which several guests ate beef Wellington allegedly prepared by Erin Patterson and later fell gravely ill. Three diners — Don Patterson, Gail Patterson and Heather Wilkinson — died after consuming meals contaminated with Amanita phalloides (death cap) mushrooms, while Ian Wilkinson survived but was left a victim of an attempted murder. Patterson was arrested in 2023 and tried before a jury in Morwell, a lengthy trial that drew sustained national attention.
The prosecution argued Patterson deliberately laced food with lethal toxins to eliminate relatives, presenting evidence on motive, opportunity and toxicology. The defence put alternate explanations, including an account that the mushrooms had been accidentally purchased from an Asian grocer, but the jury rejected that narrative. Over weeks of testimony and expert evidence, the case became one of the most closely followed criminal trials in Australia since notable historical matters, in part because of its domestic setting and the alleged method of poisoning.
Main Event
On 8 September 2025 Justice Christopher Beale delivered sentence after the jury’s guilty verdicts. He described the conduct as a fundamental betrayal of trust, noting the victims were family and guests who had expected safety and hospitality. The court imposed three life sentences for the murders and a 25‑year term for attempted murder, ordering all terms to be served concurrently; the judge fixed a non‑parole period of 33 years.
During mitigation the defence accepted that a life sentence was appropriate but urged the judge to set a non‑parole period that might allow Patterson to be freed in very old age. The prosecution, by contrast, sought life without parole, describing the offending as deliberate and particularly serious. Justice Beale said the jury had not accepted Patterson’s explanation about accidentally buying death caps and described the jury’s findings as decisive in determining culpability.
The courtroom atmosphere was tense and heavily attended by family members, public observers and media. Ian Wilkinson, whose wife Heather Wilkinson died, addressed reporters after the hearing for the first time since the lunch, and family members sat in the public gallery as the sentence was read. After sentencing Patterson was returned to the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre in western Melbourne.
Analysis & Implications
The sentence reflects both the gravity of the offending and Victorian sentencing practice. Life imprisonment with a lengthy non‑parole period is reserved for the most serious murder offences in Victoria; the 33‑year non‑parole term signals the court’s view of extreme culpability while leaving open the formal possibility of parole after decades. Practically, given Patterson’s age (50) and the non‑parole term, any parole application would occur in the mid‑2050s when she is in her early 80s.
Legally, the decision to run sentences concurrently is significant: had the court ordered some terms to be consecutive, the practical effect would have been to extend the minimum time before parole eligibility. The prosecution’s call for no parole shows the Crown’s view that the offending met the criteria for the most punitive outcome; the judge’s choice to allow the possibility of parole illustrates judicial discretion even in exceptionally serious cases.
Public reaction and media scrutiny are likely to shape broader conversations about domestic poisoning, household food safety, the limits of hospitality trust, and how courts balance retributive and rehabilitative aims. The case may influence how coronial and criminal investigators approach suspected food‑borne poisonings and could prompt renewed public education on wild mushroom identification and the risks of foraging.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Sentence | Life imprisonment; 33‑year non‑parole period |
| Murder victims | Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, Heather Wilkinson (2023) |
| Attempted murder | Ian Wilkinson — 25‑year term (concurrent) |
| Eligibility for parole | From 2056 (accounting for time served) |
The table contextualises the court’s orders and the timeline to parole eligibility. Comparatively, life sentences with non‑parole periods vary across Australian states; Victoria allows judicial discretion to impose lengthy minimum terms that reflect the particular facts and harm in each case.
Reactions & Quotes
The sentencing drew immediate responses from court attendees, legal commentators and victims’ representatives, each reflecting different perspectives on justice and closure.
“This was an enormous betrayal of trust — the victims were people who did good in their communities and who had every right to expect safety when they were guests.”
Justice Christopher Beale (sentencing remarks)
Justice Beale framed the offending by reference to the victims’ character and the breach of hospitality norms. His comment underpinned the court’s reasoning for a severe minimum term.
“The jury has seen through the vague story about a shop purchase; their verdicts were clear and overwhelming.”
Prosecuting submission summarised in court
The prosecution’s summary emphasised the evidence that persuaded jurors the poisonings were intentional rather than accidental, shaping the outcome at sentence.
“I feel sorry for everybody. Today’s sentence brings an end to the whole situation and the offending that took place.”
Public court observer (attendee)
Members of the public and court watchers described relief that the lengthy legal process had reached a formal conclusion, though many noted that sentence does not erase loss.
Unconfirmed
- No public evidence has been produced confirming that death‑cap mushrooms were purchased from the specific grocer named by the defence; that account was rejected by the jury.
- The timing and content of any media project or podcast by Simon Patterson remain unverified; reports indicate plans but no published episodes as of sentencing.
- Any future successful appeal or changes to the non‑parole period are speculative until formal filings and appellate decisions occur.
Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s sentence hands Erin Patterson life imprisonment with a 33‑year non‑parole period, reflecting the court’s view of exceptional culpability in deliberate food poisoning that resulted in three deaths. While parole eligibility remains technically open in 2056, the length of the minimum term, Patterson’s age and the gravity of the offending make early release unlikely in practice.
Beyond the individual case, the trial and sentence are likely to reverberate across legal, public‑health and media debates: they highlight how domestic settings can become scenes of severe criminality, the role of expert toxicology in modern prosecutions, and questions about media coverage of high‑profile trials. Any appeal or new evidence would alter the legal landscape; for now the sentence stands as the court’s definitive response to the 2023 deaths.