Australia - 3 dead after eating wild mushrooms, Leongatha, Victoria, Aug 2023 #7 *Arrest*

[TootsieFootsie]

Police probe after wild mushroom deaths

A major police probe has been launched into the deaths of three elderly people who died after eating wild and poisonous mushrooms.

au.lifestyle.yahoo.com

One man still fighting for life.

Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

IMPORTANT

Effective with Erin Patterson's arrest, sub judice is in effect and will be until a trial has concluded. For anyone not familiar with the judicial principle of sub judice, please review the following.

WS is based in the USA but we do try to manage the various discussions to comply with laws of other countries.

As this trial is in Australia, the case is under sub judice so please avoid anything that violates the following principles:

Basically anything that may prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial
Any suggestion, opinion, or direct accusation that the accused is either guilty OR innocent
(i.e. the accused cannot be called "the killer"; use "the accused", "the alleged killer", or "the defendant")
A defendant’s previous history of any offences is off limits
Scandalizing the court (disparaging judges, lawyers, any officer of the Court) is off limits
Broadcasting anything about proceedings which happen in the jury's absence is off limits
Any non compliance with an Order of the court is off limits

Note in the event of an Appeal subsequent to verdict:
Appeals are usually heard by senior judges who are not likely to be influenced by the media, therefore responsible comment is usually considered acceptable once a trial has concluded, regardless of if there is going to be an appeal.

Posts that are determined to constitute a violation of sub judice will be removed. To avoid this, please review the following from the Victoria Law Reform Commission and post accordingly:
10. Sub judice contempt: restricting the publication of prejudicial information

 

[Knitty]

Please continue the discussion here.

 

[MIG214222]

I don't know how to drag a post over from a closed thread so I'll stumble here & say thanks to @SouthAussie - for your reply to my last post:

SA's post from Thread #6
snipped-qte:
The Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act should ensure that any profits are taken from EP if she decides to write a book (if she is found guilty)."
end-qte

Thank you for that information @SouthAussie, that's very-very good to read.

 

[MsMarple]

The accused murderer at the centre of the Leongatha mushroom poisoning case has told a court she’s “content” to spend more than a year behind bars on remand to have her hearing in her local community.
…
Ms Patterson had previously engaged prominent silk Phillip Dunn KC to defend her, but the court was told she is now represented by Mr Mandy.

Mr Walsh said Mr Mandy had proposed dates for a three-week committal hearing later this year, but the regional court could not accommodate those dates.
…
[Magistrate Walsh] flagged the case could be heard in Melbourne or fast-tracked to the Supreme court sooner, but Mr Mandy opposed the idea.

“She would like to have her committal heard at her local court in the local community,” he said.

https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/murder-accused-mushroom-cook-erin-patterson-expected-to-appear-in-court/news-story/0eb808a1e68232b0b41d1c3fe7ea6c5e

I don’t get it. Is there any advantage to holding the committal hearing and possible trial closer to EP’s community? Why is she willing to sit in jail for another year in order to do so? And why doesn’t she wish to apply for bail?

I’d like to know if these decisions are coming at her insistence and if so what her legal team thinks. Her previous attorney, Phillip Dunn, was an ideal representative. What happened to cause Erin to hire a new attorney?

If Erin or her attorney has some sort of strategy in mind by delaying court proceedings it’s one that I can’t see.

 

[browneyes]

Thanks to those who answered my question about doing a video deposition with the surviving victim…just in case. I certainly understand the problem with not being cross examined. I could swear there was a case in the US where a video deposition was used, but I cannot remember which case. I believe the person videotaped was terminally ill. There is a BBC documentary on YT about this case that I enjoyed. So interesting that the kids, nor Erin, became extremely ill. I feel so bad for all the victims in this case.

 

[Ellery84]

Thanks to those who answered my question about doing a video deposition with the surviving victim…just in case. I certainly understand the problem with not being cross examined. I could swear there was a case in the US where a video deposition was used, but I cannot remember which case. I believe the person videotaped was terminally ill. There is a BBC documentary on YT about this case that I enjoyed. So interesting that the kids, nor Erin, became extremely ill. I feel so bad for all the victims in this case.

I know of a case where the victim was a child, and she was made to be cross examined in the court where her foster parents intimidated and stalked her. The case was against her foster parents and the Crown case was successful. The girl’s identity was under a suppression order and the court was closed during her testimony.

She came to the court via video-link, but because the case had to be strong and she was the main witness, the Crown could not have just provided the court with a video recorded testimony of the child.

I imagine a recorded testimony would have been better for her wellbeing but no, it had to be live testimony so she could be cross examined. From memory she was a 15 year old girl. I thought it to be particularly unfair as she presumably had to be taken out of school for the day to be cross-examined.

So what I’m trying to explain is that the burden of proof is really high in our courts and witnesses must be able to be cross-examined by the defence.

To be fair, I don’t think Ian is what one would call terminally ill, but he is elderly and his body has been through a lot. Jmo

I am sure his police statements will be in the brief of evidence as will his police interview recordings(s) and transcript so that will be a contemporaneous oral history of what has occurred, from his point of view.

All jmo

 

[SouthAussie]

Thanks to those who answered my question about doing a video deposition with the surviving victim…just in case. I certainly understand the problem with not being cross examined. I could swear there was a case in the US where a video deposition was used, but I cannot remember which case. I believe the person videotaped was terminally ill. There is a BBC documentary on YT about this case that I enjoyed. So interesting that the kids, nor Erin, became extremely ill. I feel so bad for all the victims in this case.

The law in Victoria says that a judge can order a video deposition as evidence, if a witness has a short life expectancy.


The Court may, for the purpose of any proceeding, make an order for the examination of any person before a judge, a judicial registrar or a registrar, or such other person as the Court appoints as examiner at any place, whether within or out of Victoria.

Such an order is often sought where a proposed witness has a limited life expectancy. In these circumstances, it may be considered in the interests of justice for the Court to permit that person’s evidence to be formally taken and recorded on video to ensure that such evidence is preserved in the event of the person’s death prior to the trial of the proceeding.


If you go to the link in this screenshot, it will download a pdf which shows the process for such an application.

 

[JLZ]

The law in Victoria says that a judge can order a video deposition as evidence, if a witness has a short life expectancy.


The Court may, for the purpose of any proceeding, make an order for the examination of any person before a judge, a judicial registrar or a registrar, or such other person as the Court appoints as examiner at any place, whether within or out of Victoria.

Such an order is often sought where a proposed witness has a limited life expectancy. In these circumstances, it may be considered in the interests of justice for the Court to permit that person’s evidence to be formally taken and recorded on video to ensure that such evidence is preserved in the event of the person’s death prior to the trial of the proceeding.


If you go to the link in this screenshot, it will download a pdf which shows the process for such an application.
View attachment 499948

Wow, that's a rabbit-hole. Some of where it leads is limited to the Common Law Division of the County Court, which is not relevant. But the general basis is section 4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958. This gives the Supreme Court and the County Court the power to take evidence in any place in Victoria. Question: does the Magistrates Court have a corresponding power?

Edit: I just want to add that I get the impression that if a Court does take evidence outside of the hearing, the other side has to be notified and have the opportunity to submit questions to the witness.

 

[SouthAussie]

Wow, that's a rabbit-hole. Some of where it leads is limited to the Common Law Division of the County Court, which is not relevant. But the general basis is section 4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958. This gives the Supreme Court and the County Court the power to take evidence in any place in Victoria. Question: does the Magistrates Court have a corresponding power?

Edit: I just want to add that I get the impression that if a Court does take evidence outside of the hearing, the other side has to be notified and have the opportunity to submit questions to the witness.

I imagine the other party (EP's lawyer) could try to have a deposition excluded as evidence. Although I guess that if a judge has approved the deposition in the first place - signed off on an application to have the deposition carried out in a legally accepted manner - it might be hard to get a deposition excluded. imo

This link may help ....

(1) No deposition taken in a proceeding must be admissible as evidence at the hearing of the proceeding unless—

(a) either—
(i) the person against whom the evidence is offered consents; or
(ii) the deponent is dead or is unfit by reason of the deponent's bodily or mental condition to attend the hearing and testify as a witness; or
(iii) the deponent is out of Victoria and it is not reasonably practicable to secure the deponent's attendance; or
(iv) the deponent cannot with reasonable diligence be found; and

(b) the party who applies to have the deposition received into evidence has given reasonable notice of the application to the other party.

MAGISTRATES' COURT GENERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2020 - REG 40.07 Deposition as evidence

classic.austlii.edu.au

 

[JLZ]

I imagine the other party (EP's lawyer) could try to have a deposition excluded as evidence. Although I guess that if a judge has approved the deposition in the first place - signed off on an application to have the deposition carried out in a legally accepted manner - it might be hard to get a deposition excluded. imo

This link may help ....

(1) No deposition taken in a proceeding must be admissible as evidence at the hearing of the proceeding unless—

(a) either—
(i) the person against whom the evidence is offered consents; or
(ii) the deponent is dead or is unfit by reason of the deponent's bodily or mental condition to attend the hearing and testify as a witness; or
(iii) the deponent is out of Victoria and it is not reasonably practicable to secure the deponent's attendance; or
(iv) the deponent cannot with reasonable diligence be found; and

(b) the party who applies to have the deposition received into evidence has given reasonable notice of the application to the other party.

MAGISTRATES' COURT GENERAL CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2020 - REG 40.07 Deposition as evidence

classic.austlii.edu.au

That applies to civil proceedings--ie not criminal proceedings. I didn't get to the bottom of it in a couple of hours. I gave up. I have got so many browser tabs open. Better than yesterday; when I ask Google any legal question it seems to assume that either I've been charged with a DUI or I've got a visa problem and am in danger of imminent deportation.

 

[AussieIan]

Only reason I could think she'd want trial close to home is perhaps the victims weren't as well liked as we presume and people just have avoided speaking Ill of the dead. Seen as 'God Botherers' perhaps in the community and EP is counting on getting a few disgruntled jurors on board to avoid a unanimous verdict. ?

 

[Ellery84]

Only reason I could think she'd want trial close to home is perhaps the victims weren't as well liked as we presume and people just have avoided speaking Ill of the dead. Seen as 'God Botherers' perhaps in the community and EP is counting on getting a few disgruntled jurors on board to avoid a unanimous verdict. ?

No. I shouldn’t think so.

 

[MsMarple]

Mr Mandy argued there were 'powerful reasons' for the hearing to take place in Ms Patterson's local community in Leongatha, eastern Victoria, noting that many of the witnesses would come from there.

'Those are her instructions, your honour. She would like to have her committal heard... in her local community,' he told Magistrate Tim Walsh.

'It's not only a matter of principle, there are powerful reasons for a committal having to take place in Ms Patterson's local community.

'The proceedings should be held in the community where the offences are alleged to have taken place, closer to her home.'
BBM

The real reason behind Erin Patterson's court bombshell

The next steps for accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson have been revealed as details emerge about her living conditions in one of Australia's toughest jails.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It appears that one question is answered according to the quote I bolded. EP seems to be adamant that the hearings take place near her community. Left unanswered are those “powerful reasons.”

I do wonder if her insistence that her instructions are followed. - as is her right - played a role in the change of lawyers. Perhaps Mr. Dunn was unable to schedule in the delayed dates, or maybe they butted heads over her defense.

 

[Ellery84]

Mr Mandy argued there were 'powerful reasons' for the hearing to take place in Ms Patterson's local community in Leongatha, eastern Victoria, noting that many of the witnesses would come from there.

'Those are her instructions, your honour. She would like to have her committal heard... in her local community,' he told Magistrate Tim Walsh.

'It's not only a matter of principle, there are powerful reasons for a committal having to take place in Ms Patterson's local community.

'The proceedings should be held in the community where the offences are alleged to have taken place, closer to her home.'
BBM

The real reason behind Erin Patterson's court bombshell

The next steps for accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson have been revealed as details emerge about her living conditions in one of Australia's toughest jails.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It appears that one question is answered according to the quote I bolded. EP seems to be adamant that the hearings take place near her community. Left unanswered are those “powerful reasons.”

I do wonder if her insistence that her instructions are followed. - as is her right - played a role in the change of lawyers. Perhaps Mr. Dunn was unable to schedule in the delayed dates, or maybe they butted heads over her defense.

Yeah maybe like a Erin’s way or the highway type of deal?

IMO

 

[Lady Bug]

Mr Mandy argued there were 'powerful reasons' for the hearing to take place in Ms Patterson's local community in Leongatha, eastern Victoria, noting that many of the witnesses would come from there.

'Those are her instructions, your honour. She would like to have her committal heard... in her local community,' he told Magistrate Tim Walsh.

'It's not only a matter of principle, there are powerful reasons for a committal having to take place in Ms Patterson's local community.

'The proceedings should be held in the community where the offences are alleged to have taken place, closer to her home.'
BBM

The real reason behind Erin Patterson's court bombshell

The next steps for accused mushroom chef Erin Patterson have been revealed as details emerge about her living conditions in one of Australia's toughest jails.

www.dailymail.co.uk

It appears that one question is answered according to the quote I bolded. EP seems to be adamant that the hearings take place near her community. Left unanswered are those “powerful reasons.”

I do wonder if her insistence that her instructions are followed. - as is her right - played a role in the change of lawyers. Perhaps Mr. Dunn was unable to schedule in the delayed dates, or maybe they butted heads over her defense.

It would be a legal strategy agreed to with her legal team.

"Those are her instructions" is typical legal speak imo. She would be taking the advice of her legal team.

The "powerful reasons" apply to all cases, not just EP's.

 

[MsMarple]

It would be a legal strategy agreed to with her legal team.

"Those are her instructions" is typical legal speak imo. She would be taking the advice of her legal team.

The "powerful reasons" apply to all cases, not just EP's.

Sorry, I’m not well acquainted with Australian law. So you’re saying her attorney is actually saying it’s his legal advice to ask for the hearings to be moved and not Erin’s? Why wouldn’t he just say that?

 

[iamshadow21]

Sorry, I’m not well acquainted with Australian law. So you’re saying her attorney is actually saying it’s his legal advice to ask for the hearings to be moved and not Erin’s? Why wouldn’t he just say that?

When does a lawyer or a politician or a PR rep ever speak plainly? It's like 'helping police with their enquiries' actually tends to mean they've got someone in the box and they're trying to crack them. It's all jargon and euphemism.

MOO

 

[ch_13]

It would be a legal strategy agreed to with her legal team.

"Those are her instructions" is typical legal speak imo. She would be taking the advice of her legal team.

The "powerful reasons" apply to all cases, not just EP's.

Erin and her current legal team may be in agreement about moving the hearing. But it's interesting that she had a new barrister representing her. Especially when there was such a big splash not 6 weeks ago about her hiring Philip Dunn.

To switch lawyers yet again in such a short time does suggest a clash between client and attorney. Otherwise, why else would Dunn leave her team so quickly, even before the judge agreed to moving the hearing?

And I can't help but remember her written statement where she said she regretted listening to her first set of attorneys. (Personally, I think she should have listened to them. That written statement will be difficult for her to overcome, IMO.)

 

[Lady Bug]

Sorry, I’m not well acquainted with Australian law. So you’re saying her attorney is actually saying it’s his legal advice to ask for the hearings to be moved and not Erin’s? Why wouldn’t he just say that?

Solicitors and Barristers say they are acting according to their client's instructions and naturally they are, however, the reason for hiring a legal representative is to receive their expert advice. It makes sense that the client's instructions are based on the legal advice they are given.