Image source, EPA

Erin Patterson is now a household name in Australia, after finding herself at the heart of a triple-murder case that gripped the world last year.

But before all of that, she was a regular mum in a small Australian town.

She'd studied business and accounting at university, and at one point worked as an air traffic controller at Melbourne's Tullamarine airport.

She and her estranged husband Simon Patterson got married in 2007.

"Some of the things that attracted me to her in the first place is definitely her intelligence. She's quite witty and can be quite funny," he told the court during her murder trial last year.

Simon said that Erin had received a "substantial inheritance" from her grandmother, which he estimated at A$2m ($1.3m; £964,000), and the court heard she wasn't working at the time of the murders.

The couple separated in 2015 - though they remained on amicable terms for a while.

But their relationship changed in 2022, after Simon listed himself as "separated" on his tax return - a move that he said upset Erin. There was also a falling out over child support payments, and the jury was shown unflattering messages where Erin rants about her former partner being a "deadbeat" and his parents "a lost cause".

When Erin invited Simon and his family over for that fateful lunch in July 2023, Simon pulled out the day before, saying he felt "uncomfortable" attending amid the tension. And after the trial, it was revealed he believed she had repeatedly tried to poison him before.

A reminder - last September, Erin Patterson was sentenced to life in prison after a jury found her guilty of murdering three people and the attempted murder of another.

In sentencing, the judge set a non-parole period of 33 years, meaning Patterson can apply for release in 2056 when she will be in her early 80s.

The judge said he had made this decision due to the “harsh prison conditions” Patterson had already faced given she was in solitary confinement and that she would likely continue to be held in such a manner due to her notoriety.

But as we mentioned, the prosecution think the judge erred here and want the appeal panel to rule that she never be released.

Fan Wang
Live reporter

The court has just adjourned for a lunch break, here is what happened this morning:

• Patterson's lawyers have been arguing her convictions should be overturned
• They started the hearing by pressing on a complaint which they describe as “catastrophic” for the trial - that the jury accidentally wound up staying in the same hotel as some prosecutors, a key witness and some journalists
• The lawyers went on to argue several pieces of evidence were misused, including the mobile phone tower data used to suggest Patterson had visited two areas where death cap mushrooms were recently sighted
• Evidence which was critical to their case was wrongfully excluded and that forced Patterson to testify - a decision she may not have taken otherwise, they told a panel of three appeal judges
• There are seven grounds of appeal from the defence - most of which we've got through this morning - which also include claims the prosecution had unfairly cross-examined their client and that their closing address was full of problems
• A panel of three judges will continue to listen and question the defence team when the court returns at 2:15pm (5:15am GMT)
• We're also expecting to hear from the prosecution at some point too, as they are appealing Patterson's sentence because they believe she shouldn't have the possibility of ever being released from prison

Lana Lam
BBC News, Sydney

Image source, Getty Images

And we're onto ground six of Patterson's appeal against her triple murder conviction - that the closing address made by the prosecutors during last year's trial was "problematic".

That's because "certain questions" were not asked of witnesses but were mentioned in the address, and there was "selective quoting" of experts, according to Patterson's barrister Richard Edney.

In total, her team have 35 complaints about the prosecution's closing statement.

But Justice Peter Kidd, one of the three appeal court judges hearing the matter, asks why the trio should deal with these concerns when the defence team during the trial "did not see fit to agitate these complaints with the trial judge".

Kidd adds that the defence closing statement - which followed the prosecutions - appeared to address a lot of these issues with the prosecution's case by trying to persuade the jury that there was a "reasonable doubt".

Edney says the defence lawyers at trial were under the pump and therefore his team found additional problems when “the dust [had] settled from the trial”.

Barrister Richard Edney argues that the prosecutor's framing of her questions, the repetitive nature of them, and the length of the cross examination were all unfair.

"The applicant’s cross-examination was doused with impermissible conduct and was unnecessarily protracted," he claims.

For example, Patterson was repeatedly asked whether other witnesses were wrong, which may have led the jury to think why Patterson couldn't explain why she claimed they were wrong.

And there were other ways in which the questioning may have caused the jury to think on things they shouldn't be, Patterson's team says.

Katy Watson
Australia correspondent

Erin Patterson has accused the prosecution of an “unfair and oppressive” cross-examination that constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

Being cross-examined in court isn’t supposed to be easy – the aim is to undermine the other side’s case, to find holes in their argument. And for five days, that’s what barrister Nanette Rogers did.

Erin Patterson fielded endless questions, with Rogers accusing her of lying repeatedly, and at one point suggestion she had “two faces”.

But perhaps the most confrontational moment was when Patterson was quizzed over claims she’d booked an appointment for gastric bypass surgery - which was her excuse for lying to her guests about having cancer.

The clinic she named had never offered that procedure. Asked about the inconsistencies, she responded with “I don’t know” or “I don’t remember” – a departure from other moments where she outright rejected accusations by Rogers.

“Are you making this up as you go along?” asked Rogers firmly. ‘No,” replied Patterson.

Simon Atkinson
Australia producer

We're now hearing a lot of complicated back and forth about evidence the defence says the judge wrongly excluded from the trial.

Patterson's main defence during the trial was that this was all a terrible accident – that she was had picked the death caps accidentally – not with any murderous intent.

And her lawyers wanted to use photos, dating back to 2020, to show she had a long-held interest in foraging mushrooms and eating them. But the judge ruled them inadmissible or irrelevant.

Her lawyers say "the evidence was necessary to displace the Crown proposition that the alleged offending involved isolated incidents of picking death cap mushrooms" and so should have been allowed to be brought by the defence at trial.

The judges pointed out that Patterson did still have - and take - the opportunity to verbally explain her mushroom foraging hobby to the jury, though her team says she may not have chosen to take the stand at all if these photos were allowed.

Back to Patterson's lawyer, Veronika Drago, on ground two of the appeal - which centres around concerns of cell tower evidence and a series of posts on citizen scientist site iNaturalist.

During the trial, the court heard that Patterson's phone may have been near two sites that had been listed on iNaturalist as places where death cap mushrooms could be found.

Drago says the cell tower evidence and the mushroom posts were irrelevant as they were "layer of speculation upon speculation and inferences" and this made that information "ripe for misuse" in the trial.

The cell tower evidence was based on a possibility only while the posts had "no value at all," she argued, and that "greater care" was needed when using this information.

It put her client in an impossible situation, she's arguing: “How does one respond to evidence of nothing, with respect to the iNaturalist posts, and how does one respond to evidence of a possibility, other than I didn’t go there?"

Image source, Getty Images

As he handed down the sentence in September last year, Justice Christopher Beale provided some insight into Erin Patterson's day-to-day life behind bars.

Given the severity of her crimes and her public profile, Patterson has a "maximum security rating", he said.

As a result, the triple murderer had been spending 22 hours a day in her cell, with meals and medicine "delivered though a flap in [the] cell door", Justice Beale described. She also had access to a small concrete yard - 2m by 1.5m - where she could exercise and get fresh air, he said.

It was there that she could talk to her neighbouring prisoner through a mesh wire fence. That prisoner was serving a lengthy sentence for terrorism offences and had attacked other inmates, Justice Beale said.

Inmates were also allowed to use the prison library twice a week for 20 minutes but due to staff shortages, Patterson had not been able to access it on a regular basis.

We haven't heard much about her time in prison since, but we expect we may get an update when the prosecution discusses their appeal, given these conditions are central to their arguments.

Patterson’s team are fleshing out why they say evidence of death cap mushroom reports on iNaturalist and cell towers we mentioned a few minutes ago should not have been allowed.

Patterson’s lawyer Veronika Drago tells the judges that during the trial, the prosecution had tried to turn "evidence of nothing into something".

She is stressing that the trial judge had been clear during a pre-trial hearing that the cell tower evidence only “possibly” showed where Patterson had been and also that both parties had agreed “there was no evidence that [Patterson] had ever accessed or seen those posts (on iNaturalist)".

Simon Atkinson
Australia producer

Some context on this next ground of appeal for you.

We don’t know exactly where Erin Patterson got the death cap mushrooms she used in her deadly meal.

But during the trial prosecutors put forward a theory: that she found two sightings reported online near her hometown, then quickly went looking for them.

Jurors heard her phone connected to cell towers in both of those areas - something which the prosecution said indicated she’d visited those spots.

Hours after her phone pinged in one of these locations, she bought a food dehydrator which was used to prepare the mushrooms for the lunch - and which Patterson then dumped at a rubbish tip days afterwards.

There was evidence that Patterson had used iNaturalist online database in the past, but her team says there is nothing to say she definitely saw posts about these two sightings – though many of her devices were wiped before police inspected them.

It is worth noting that, when sentencing Patterson, the judge said this evidence wasn’t really central to the case - it didn’t really matter where she sourced the deadly mushrooms from, it was abundantly clear that she had.

While the defence team admits that there is no evidence suggesting that the jurors communicated with other parties when they stayed in the same hotel, they highlighted that the lodging accident happened during the week of jury deliberation - which is the "most critical stage of the trial".

After a bit more back and forth, the defence is moving on to another ground of appeal.

Lana Lam
BBC News, Sydney

Patterson's barrister now brings up media articles from last year's trial as possible evidence that jury members might have seen members of the prosecution while in the same hotel.

He's been repeatedly asked by the panel for evidence to show possible contact but is coming up short.

“The other aspect of that week of deliberations and the sequestration is the number of media articles that were published in the event or after the event," he says.

"There appears, at least, on that material, some contact which we don't find anywhere else."

But the judges push back.

"Why should we prefer a media report over an email from a prosecution solicitor that says we confirm that the prosecution solicitors did not interact with the jury at any stage," asks Justice Lesley Taylor.

In this short video explainer, BBC's Australia correspondent Katy Watson explains why Erin Patterson is back in court today.

The BBC is not in court today – and the public video feed we're watching from does not include a view of Erin Patterson in prison.

But those in court in Melbourne can see it.

According to our news partner the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Patterson is “sitting forward, listening intently to this legal back-and-forth about whether the jury could have been compromised by the sequestration arrangements".

Their reporter Kristian Silva adds: “Those who spent plenty of time with her in the courtroom last year have seen these mannerisms before: rapid blinking, a stern face and a bit of fidgeting.”

Patterson's barrister started this hearing by insisting this accommodation snafu was "catastrophic" for the trial.

Under sustained questioning from the appeal judges, Edney appears to be softening his language. It was "undesirable" that the jury was staying in the same hotel as prosecutors and a police witness, he said moments ago.

Justice Lesley Taylor interjects: "Perhaps not as strong as catastrophic?"

Edney responds: "We maintain that this was a very serious breach of sequestration".

Earlier, he had said there was a "reasonable possibility" that some jury members saw the police informant at the hotel - but he conceded there's no evidence they interacted.

Fan Wang
Live reporter

Patterson's legal team are answering questions from the three judges, and as we say earlier, they're asking why it matters if the jury accidentally ended up in the same hotel as other parties, given they were under constant supervision.

The oath jurors take only bars them from discussing the case with others, Justice Lesley Taylor says.

Patterson's barrister Richard Edney says the meaning of contact and interaction should be conceived of in a broad way, and the jurors staying in the same location with the others in itself "is an interaction". Even if there was no communication, there may have been "subconscious influence", he says.

He adds that had it been suggested that the jury and the others would all stay in the same hotel due to the accommodation shortages, the trial judge would have rejected such a "preposterous proposal".

Simon Atkinson
Australia producer

Image source, EPA

After sitting through the many weeks of Erin’s Patterson’s trial, the barristers grew familiar to us - and not just in the courthouse.

In the small town of Morwell, you’d spot them in the local cafes and restaurants too, and as they walked in and out of court steadfastly ignoring the barrage of cameras.

But in this appeal, different figures are representing the two sides.

Patterson is using the same law firm, but they have appointed Richard Edney and Veronika Drago to lead her case. Her barrister from the trial, Colin Mandy, is not involved here.

And while it was Dr Nanette Rodgers lead the prosecution last year, today Victoria’s Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC and prosecutor Jeremy McWilliams are appearing for the crown.

Edney concedes that there is no evidence that the jurors had any interaction with the prosecution team or the key witness who were staying at the same hotel - but says the accommodation bungle was still "catastrophic".

The judges are trying to get to the nub of why he thinks that.

One says that, in any criminal process, jurors see other parties all the time - in corridors, or even nearby cafes - and they're supervised by jurykeepers whose job it is to ensure there's no improper communication.

“So I suppose my question is... if they did view or see the practitioners, so what?” the judge asks.

“Is there any evidence there has been a breach of the communication embargo? If there has been no breach of that where’s the fundamental irregularity?”

Lana Lam
BBC News, Sydney

Erin Patterson's legal team has just begun voicing its arguments - their focus is on where the jury was staying as they deliberated the case.

"A fundamental irregularity occurred while the jury was sequestered," the lawyer tells the court.

The jurors were supposed to be isolated, but accommodation shortages meant they shared a hotel with members of the prosecution, a key police witness, and journalists - though the judges have just now pointed out there’s no evidence they interacted with any of these other guests.

Still, Patterson's barrister Richard Edney said this "undermined the integrity of the verdicts and requires the quashing of the convictions".

A retrial is required "so that justice can not only be done but be seen to be done".

Those words are profoundly important to the integrity of the legal system and the public's confidence in it, he says.