1 00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:03,480 Speaker 1: It was always on the cards Aaron Patterson appealing her 2 00:00:03,560 --> 00:00:08,080 Speaker 1: murder convictions over the notorious Mushroom Lunch. Her new look 3 00:00:08,160 --> 00:00:11,760 Speaker 1: legal team have now confirmed that's exactly what she will do. 4 00:00:12,320 --> 00:00:15,840 Speaker 1: But this week we heard the prosecution will also be appealing, 5 00:00:16,239 --> 00:00:20,760 Speaker 1: calling her sentence manifestly inadequate. We'll discuss all of this 6 00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:24,440 Speaker 1: on the show with a special guest. I'm Brooke Greebert Craig, 7 00:00:24,720 --> 00:00:29,560 Speaker 1: and this is the Mushroom cook. I'm back with my colleague, 8 00:00:29,600 --> 00:00:32,360 Speaker 1: court reporter Laura Plasella. Hi, Laura, Hey Brook. 9 00:00:32,400 --> 00:00:34,440 Speaker 2: It's great to be back. And a lot has happened 10 00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:35,400 Speaker 2: over the last few weeks. 11 00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:38,920 Speaker 1: Yes, it has. So now we have two appeals at play. 12 00:00:39,280 --> 00:00:41,959 Speaker 1: Aaron is appealing and the prosecution are appealing. 13 00:00:42,200 --> 00:00:42,720 Speaker 3: That's right. 14 00:00:42,920 --> 00:00:45,840 Speaker 2: So last week Aaron appeared in court for a very 15 00:00:45,920 --> 00:00:50,279 Speaker 2: brief five minute hearing. She has a new lawyer. His 16 00:00:50,360 --> 00:00:53,400 Speaker 2: name is Richard Edney, and he told the court that 17 00:00:53,640 --> 00:00:57,040 Speaker 2: Erin will be appealing her convictions, and that was the 18 00:00:57,080 --> 00:01:00,360 Speaker 2: first time that her legal team had confirmed that would 19 00:01:00,360 --> 00:01:04,160 Speaker 2: be happening. But it's worth mentioning that our veteran crime 20 00:01:04,200 --> 00:01:07,920 Speaker 2: reporter Anthony Dowsley, who our listeners know very well, he 21 00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:10,760 Speaker 2: has been reporting for months that Aeron's team would be 22 00:01:10,840 --> 00:01:12,920 Speaker 2: lodging that appeal, so it was only a matter of 23 00:01:12,920 --> 00:01:16,880 Speaker 2: time until it was confirmed. So I just mentioned mister Edney. 24 00:01:17,000 --> 00:01:21,600 Speaker 2: He appeared in that brief hearing. But we understand that 25 00:01:21,600 --> 00:01:24,399 Speaker 2: there'll be another barrister who will be brought in to 26 00:01:24,480 --> 00:01:29,200 Speaker 2: actually run Erin's appeal. His name is Julian McMahon and 27 00:01:29,280 --> 00:01:31,960 Speaker 2: he is a top human rights lawyer. He's very well 28 00:01:31,959 --> 00:01:32,760 Speaker 2: known in Australia. 29 00:01:33,600 --> 00:01:37,360 Speaker 1: Yes, he represented two of the Barley Nine. He tried 30 00:01:37,400 --> 00:01:43,199 Speaker 1: to save the ringleaders Andrew Chan and Muran Sukermarin from execution. 31 00:01:44,040 --> 00:01:48,440 Speaker 1: So McMahon had previously described himself as having history of 32 00:01:48,480 --> 00:01:52,160 Speaker 1: looking after people who no one else really wanted to defend. 33 00:01:52,480 --> 00:01:55,560 Speaker 1: And as I mentioned before, the prosecution are appealing. 34 00:01:55,320 --> 00:01:58,240 Speaker 2: Yes, and that was only confirmed this week. And again 35 00:01:58,320 --> 00:02:01,320 Speaker 2: Dows has actually been reporting for about a month now 36 00:02:01,440 --> 00:02:05,720 Speaker 2: that the Crown prosecutors were quite underwhelmed by the thirty 37 00:02:05,720 --> 00:02:10,040 Speaker 2: three year minimum sentence that Erin was handed. Sources told 38 00:02:10,120 --> 00:02:13,840 Speaker 2: him that the Director of Public Prosecutions was considering an appeal, 39 00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:17,320 Speaker 2: and on Monday we got that confirmation. They have lodged 40 00:02:17,320 --> 00:02:21,880 Speaker 2: their paperwork and they're claiming that Erin's sentence was manifestly inadequate. 41 00:02:22,160 --> 00:02:24,680 Speaker 1: So, Laura, we've now got a special guest on the show, 42 00:02:24,880 --> 00:02:29,040 Speaker 1: Lauren Cassimatis, a criminal defense lawyer and founder of Gallant Law. 43 00:02:29,200 --> 00:02:30,040 Speaker 2: Let's dyal her In. 44 00:02:30,720 --> 00:02:33,240 Speaker 1: Hi, Lauren, thank you so much for joining us. So 45 00:02:33,280 --> 00:02:37,160 Speaker 1: we've obviously got two appeals at play here. We'll start 46 00:02:37,200 --> 00:02:40,160 Speaker 1: with Erons. What exactly is she appealing? 47 00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:46,040 Speaker 4: So Eron's council haven't released their grounds yet, so at 48 00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:49,440 Speaker 4: the moment they're preparing their appeal ground. So what that 49 00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:52,520 Speaker 4: means is you don't just get an automatic right to appeal. 50 00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:56,160 Speaker 4: You have to prepare written submissions on why the court 51 00:02:56,240 --> 00:02:59,040 Speaker 4: should even entertain it. So at the moment, they're preparing 52 00:02:59,160 --> 00:03:02,240 Speaker 4: those grounds and going through transcripts from the trial to 53 00:03:02,240 --> 00:03:05,280 Speaker 4: see if there's anything there that they can submit. So 54 00:03:05,560 --> 00:03:08,880 Speaker 4: usually if you're appealing a conviction, which is what her 55 00:03:08,919 --> 00:03:12,480 Speaker 4: team's doing, they're appealing the finding of guilt delivered by 56 00:03:12,520 --> 00:03:16,239 Speaker 4: the jury. Usually the grounds there are that one there 57 00:03:16,280 --> 00:03:20,440 Speaker 4: was an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict by the jury. What 58 00:03:20,480 --> 00:03:24,480 Speaker 4: that means is that on all the evidence the jury heard, 59 00:03:24,560 --> 00:03:27,640 Speaker 4: they couldn't have come to that decision, it's not the 60 00:03:27,720 --> 00:03:29,760 Speaker 4: right verdict, so that's probably the. 61 00:03:29,720 --> 00:03:30,840 Speaker 3: Main ground they'll run with. 62 00:03:31,320 --> 00:03:36,080 Speaker 4: Another ground is that perhaps the judge, the trial judge 63 00:03:36,120 --> 00:03:38,920 Speaker 4: made an error in terms of his legal directions to 64 00:03:38,960 --> 00:03:42,920 Speaker 4: the jury. So the jury's there to analyze the evidence 65 00:03:43,120 --> 00:03:46,680 Speaker 4: and apply it to the decision making process. The judge 66 00:03:46,720 --> 00:03:48,800 Speaker 4: is there to apply the law and direct them on 67 00:03:48,840 --> 00:03:51,320 Speaker 4: any kind of legal point. So if the judge's made 68 00:03:51,360 --> 00:03:54,640 Speaker 4: an error there, that's appellable as well. There's a third 69 00:03:54,720 --> 00:03:58,960 Speaker 4: ground sometimes US lawyers run, but it's very rare, and 70 00:03:59,000 --> 00:04:01,720 Speaker 4: that's called in comps and see of council. So what 71 00:04:01,760 --> 00:04:04,520 Speaker 4: that means is that the trial barrister running it on 72 00:04:04,560 --> 00:04:08,560 Speaker 4: behalf of Miss Patterson was incompetence, so to speak. It's 73 00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,480 Speaker 4: very rare that one, and I doubt in this scenario. 74 00:04:11,000 --> 00:04:11,640 Speaker 3: That's the case. 75 00:04:11,880 --> 00:04:14,600 Speaker 4: I know her cur legal team very well and can't 76 00:04:14,640 --> 00:04:17,880 Speaker 4: imagine they made any kind of error. And there's also 77 00:04:18,000 --> 00:04:20,440 Speaker 4: a general ground and miscarriage of justice, and that sort 78 00:04:20,440 --> 00:04:22,800 Speaker 4: of ties into the saturary verdict. 79 00:04:22,920 --> 00:04:26,240 Speaker 3: So overall, the jury made a nearerror. 80 00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:28,760 Speaker 4: To the point that it's just a significant miscarriage of 81 00:04:28,880 --> 00:04:30,839 Speaker 4: justice and we must quash the conviction. 82 00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:35,200 Speaker 2: We spoke about in a previous episode that Aaron had 83 00:04:35,200 --> 00:04:38,400 Speaker 2: twenty eight days to lodge an appeal. But that's changed, 84 00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:38,880 Speaker 2: hasn't it. 85 00:04:39,680 --> 00:04:40,480 Speaker 3: So yeah, that's right. 86 00:04:40,520 --> 00:04:43,479 Speaker 4: So generally there's twenty eight days from the date of sentence, 87 00:04:43,680 --> 00:04:45,880 Speaker 4: so not from the date she was found guilty, but 88 00:04:45,880 --> 00:04:48,919 Speaker 4: from the date the judge sentenced her. It's changed in 89 00:04:49,040 --> 00:04:52,360 Speaker 4: terms of now you can apply for an extension of 90 00:04:52,400 --> 00:04:55,600 Speaker 4: a further twenty eight days. However, what hasn't changed is 91 00:04:55,640 --> 00:04:58,520 Speaker 4: that often US lawyers can still seek an out of 92 00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:03,760 Speaker 4: time application. That's been the go for forever because with 93 00:05:03,880 --> 00:05:07,120 Speaker 4: these sort of complex long trials, twenty eight days just 94 00:05:07,200 --> 00:05:09,400 Speaker 4: isn't enough to go through all the evidence, all the 95 00:05:09,480 --> 00:05:12,520 Speaker 4: legal submissions, all the directions from the judge. We need 96 00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:15,800 Speaker 4: time to go through every single document and transcript with 97 00:05:15,839 --> 00:05:19,480 Speaker 4: a fine tooth comb. So often we're seeking extensions and 98 00:05:19,520 --> 00:05:22,599 Speaker 4: applying for out of time anyway, and it's not an 99 00:05:22,640 --> 00:05:25,040 Speaker 4: easy exercise. You have to satisfy the Court of Appeal 100 00:05:25,080 --> 00:05:28,760 Speaker 4: that the DeLay's justified. But yes, now there's I guess 101 00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:31,320 Speaker 4: an extra kick at the ball with this extension in 102 00:05:31,360 --> 00:05:32,880 Speaker 4: twenty eight days, And. 103 00:05:32,800 --> 00:05:35,400 Speaker 1: Can you explain to us what the process looks like? 104 00:05:36,360 --> 00:05:39,679 Speaker 4: So with Miss Patterson's appeal, what would happen is that 105 00:05:40,360 --> 00:05:43,320 Speaker 4: once the legal team is satisfied with their grounds, they 106 00:05:43,360 --> 00:05:45,520 Speaker 4: actually prepare what we call a written case. So there's 107 00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:48,599 Speaker 4: a document that puts forward all the submissions, refers to 108 00:05:48,680 --> 00:05:51,960 Speaker 4: relevant case law and precedent, refers to the actual trial 109 00:05:52,000 --> 00:05:55,240 Speaker 4: itself and any evidence that was given or any legal 110 00:05:55,320 --> 00:05:59,800 Speaker 4: arguments made, and then that's put forward to the prosecution, 111 00:06:00,120 --> 00:06:03,200 Speaker 4: to the Crown and to the court and it's then 112 00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:05,640 Speaker 4: up to the court to consider whether they even are 113 00:06:05,640 --> 00:06:08,719 Speaker 4: willing to grant permission to the legal team to be 114 00:06:08,800 --> 00:06:11,359 Speaker 4: heard on the appeal. So we call that leave to appeal. 115 00:06:11,680 --> 00:06:14,200 Speaker 4: So again you don't get an automatic right to appeal. 116 00:06:14,520 --> 00:06:17,440 Speaker 4: You have to persuade the court that they ought to 117 00:06:17,480 --> 00:06:20,599 Speaker 4: even permit you to be heard. So that's the leave 118 00:06:20,640 --> 00:06:25,440 Speaker 4: to appeal application that's usually heard by one judge generally, 119 00:06:25,760 --> 00:06:28,120 Speaker 4: And what would happen then is that if the judge 120 00:06:28,120 --> 00:06:32,360 Speaker 4: is satisfied there's merit in appealing. Sometimes the appeal might 121 00:06:32,400 --> 00:06:35,400 Speaker 4: even proceed on the same day the decisions made around 122 00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:38,880 Speaker 4: granting leave or it's booked off for an appeal. And 123 00:06:39,279 --> 00:06:41,960 Speaker 4: with a matter like this, I suspect we booked off 124 00:06:42,000 --> 00:06:44,960 Speaker 4: for an appeal because it's just so complex and probably 125 00:06:45,000 --> 00:06:46,279 Speaker 4: before three judges. 126 00:06:47,000 --> 00:06:49,520 Speaker 2: What does the timeline look here? I know the appeal 127 00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:52,880 Speaker 2: process sometimes can take a while. Are we looking at 128 00:06:52,920 --> 00:06:54,159 Speaker 2: an appeal next year? 129 00:06:54,160 --> 00:06:56,600 Speaker 3: This hearing subject to the court's diary. 130 00:06:57,120 --> 00:06:59,800 Speaker 4: Possibly could get squeezed in andto this year, but probably 131 00:06:59,800 --> 00:07:02,720 Speaker 4: more likely next year. There are many appeals on foots 132 00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:05,560 Speaker 4: and the Court of Appeal is relatively small compared to 133 00:07:05,600 --> 00:07:08,200 Speaker 4: the other jurisdictions, so trying to fit it in the 134 00:07:08,240 --> 00:07:11,840 Speaker 4: court schedule prioritizing matters usually they prioritize the ones where 135 00:07:11,920 --> 00:07:12,880 Speaker 4: the accused is in. 136 00:07:12,800 --> 00:07:14,840 Speaker 3: Custody, so that that will speed it up. 137 00:07:15,040 --> 00:07:17,320 Speaker 4: But on the other hand, I probably missed a step 138 00:07:17,360 --> 00:07:20,840 Speaker 4: earlier where once the defense put forward their submissions to 139 00:07:20,880 --> 00:07:23,800 Speaker 4: the prosecution, prosecution then need time totally respond. 140 00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:25,840 Speaker 3: So that's probably going to take another month as. 141 00:07:25,720 --> 00:07:29,560 Speaker 4: Well for them to then prepare submissions in response, put 142 00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:32,440 Speaker 4: it forward to the court reviews it. So I'm going 143 00:07:32,480 --> 00:07:34,200 Speaker 4: to say it's likely to be next year. 144 00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:36,640 Speaker 1: What are the chances are that she gets a retrial 145 00:07:37,040 --> 00:07:38,320 Speaker 1: and how common are they? 146 00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:41,360 Speaker 3: They do happen to say it's common. 147 00:07:41,680 --> 00:07:43,600 Speaker 4: Look, I have to say it's all case by case, 148 00:07:43,680 --> 00:07:47,480 Speaker 4: but they definitely happened. There's also a chance of the 149 00:07:47,480 --> 00:07:50,880 Speaker 4: conviction just beingqushed without a retrial, So a decision might 150 00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:54,200 Speaker 4: be made where they say, look, there was such a 151 00:07:54,240 --> 00:07:56,720 Speaker 4: miscarriage of justice, there is just no evidence here to 152 00:07:56,800 --> 00:08:00,840 Speaker 4: convict her. We're going to quash the conviction and she exonerated. 153 00:08:01,440 --> 00:08:04,960 Speaker 4: Or the other alternative is that, okay, look we'll send 154 00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:07,320 Speaker 4: it back to the Supreme Court and the whole trial 155 00:08:07,400 --> 00:08:10,480 Speaker 4: just starts over again from scratch, so the same witnesses 156 00:08:10,480 --> 00:08:12,880 Speaker 4: will be called. It might be a different legal team 157 00:08:12,880 --> 00:08:16,560 Speaker 4: with a different legal strategy, especially from the prosecution side. 158 00:08:16,840 --> 00:08:18,160 Speaker 3: But to answer your. 159 00:08:18,120 --> 00:08:21,760 Speaker 4: Question around how common they are, how likely, it really 160 00:08:21,800 --> 00:08:23,800 Speaker 4: just comes down to whether they can get over the line. 161 00:08:23,800 --> 00:08:27,800 Speaker 4: In terms of the appeal, this case is a circumstantial case. 162 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:31,080 Speaker 4: So what that means is there was no direct evidence 163 00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,400 Speaker 4: of her intention to murder the family. You know, another 164 00:08:34,480 --> 00:08:37,240 Speaker 4: case is a defense might be around identity, did the 165 00:08:37,240 --> 00:08:40,000 Speaker 4: accused actually do it, or it might be self defense. 166 00:08:40,360 --> 00:08:42,360 Speaker 3: In this scenario, none of those irrelevant. 167 00:08:42,400 --> 00:08:45,960 Speaker 4: It just comes down to whether she actually intended to 168 00:08:46,080 --> 00:08:50,439 Speaker 4: kill the victims. So when I say circumstantial case, it's 169 00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:52,800 Speaker 4: not like they found diary records of her saying, oh 170 00:08:52,800 --> 00:08:54,200 Speaker 4: I plan on doing this and I want to do 171 00:08:54,240 --> 00:08:56,320 Speaker 4: this to them, or it's not actually made admissions around 172 00:08:56,320 --> 00:08:57,760 Speaker 4: wanting to cause harm. 173 00:08:58,400 --> 00:09:00,160 Speaker 3: They piece together a puzzle pie. 174 00:09:00,480 --> 00:09:03,920 Speaker 4: So you know the fact that she didn't get significantly 175 00:09:03,960 --> 00:09:06,160 Speaker 4: ill compared to the others, that's a piece in the puzzle. 176 00:09:06,480 --> 00:09:09,040 Speaker 4: The fact that she was researching mushrooms, the fact that 177 00:09:09,080 --> 00:09:11,599 Speaker 4: the plates were different colors, the fact she lied to 178 00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:16,000 Speaker 4: police afterwards. It's called post defense conduct. So all of 179 00:09:16,080 --> 00:09:19,599 Speaker 4: those things you added together to create a case that 180 00:09:19,679 --> 00:09:23,320 Speaker 4: the prosecution says supports the only case theory being that 181 00:09:23,360 --> 00:09:28,400 Speaker 4: she intended to murder the victims. So overall, in the 182 00:09:28,400 --> 00:09:30,680 Speaker 4: court appeal they have to decide whether all of this 183 00:09:30,760 --> 00:09:34,960 Speaker 4: circumstantial evidence does stack up or whether something is so 184 00:09:35,120 --> 00:09:38,160 Speaker 4: flawed in the process that there needs to be a retrial. 185 00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:41,040 Speaker 2: And that puzzle analogy you gave is actually one that 186 00:09:41,240 --> 00:09:44,080 Speaker 2: was mentioned in the trial too. But now to sort 187 00:09:44,080 --> 00:09:47,280 Speaker 2: of switch gears, what are the DPP appealing? 188 00:09:48,120 --> 00:09:49,600 Speaker 3: So they're appealing sentence. 189 00:09:49,679 --> 00:09:52,760 Speaker 4: So they're obviously satisfied with the conviction, but what they're 190 00:09:52,760 --> 00:09:56,520 Speaker 4: not satisfied with is, I guess the severity of the sentence. 191 00:09:56,640 --> 00:10:02,040 Speaker 4: So their legal argument is that the sentence is manifestly inadequate. 192 00:10:02,440 --> 00:10:05,040 Speaker 4: So from the defense perspective, if they would appeal sentence, 193 00:10:05,080 --> 00:10:08,480 Speaker 4: they would argue the sentence is manifestly excessive, it's too severe, 194 00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:10,080 Speaker 4: the prosecutors. 195 00:10:09,559 --> 00:10:10,480 Speaker 3: Saying it's too lenient. 196 00:10:10,800 --> 00:10:13,800 Speaker 4: So she got a non parole period of thirty three years. 197 00:10:13,960 --> 00:10:17,840 Speaker 4: That means she's eligible to be released on parole once 198 00:10:17,880 --> 00:10:20,920 Speaker 4: she's served thirty three years in custody minus the time 199 00:10:21,000 --> 00:10:23,560 Speaker 4: she's done on remand so the court always deducts time 200 00:10:24,040 --> 00:10:27,840 Speaker 4: for the period that prisoners remain in custody while the 201 00:10:28,000 --> 00:10:30,240 Speaker 4: case is on foot and is yet to be finalized. 202 00:10:30,520 --> 00:10:33,640 Speaker 4: When they're eligible for parole, it doesn't necessarily mean they 203 00:10:33,640 --> 00:10:36,480 Speaker 4: will come out. So the parole board still has to 204 00:10:36,520 --> 00:10:40,000 Speaker 4: consider the progress prisoners of mate in custody, and it 205 00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:41,880 Speaker 4: might be that they say, look, Nut, we still want 206 00:10:41,920 --> 00:10:43,920 Speaker 4: you to do another couple of years, and they will reassess, 207 00:10:44,520 --> 00:10:47,280 Speaker 4: so she doesn't automatically. 208 00:10:46,800 --> 00:10:49,160 Speaker 3: Get released at that thirty three year mark. 209 00:10:49,200 --> 00:10:51,520 Speaker 4: But what the prosecution is saying is that, well, we 210 00:10:51,600 --> 00:10:55,000 Speaker 4: still want her to be ineligible for more years, We 211 00:10:55,040 --> 00:10:58,079 Speaker 4: want her to spend more time in custody before she's eailable, 212 00:10:58,320 --> 00:10:59,959 Speaker 4: or we don't want her to be eligible at all. 213 00:11:00,160 --> 00:11:02,719 Speaker 4: We want her to do a straight life sentence, So 214 00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:07,640 Speaker 4: that's their argument. In terms of the grounds, usually what 215 00:11:07,720 --> 00:11:11,320 Speaker 4: happens is in their ridden grounds, and similar to the 216 00:11:11,360 --> 00:11:14,000 Speaker 4: commction process, they've got to satisfy the court that there's 217 00:11:14,240 --> 00:11:16,960 Speaker 4: enough to even be permitted to appeals, so to get leave. 218 00:11:17,200 --> 00:11:20,760 Speaker 4: In those grounds, they'll be saying that perhaps the trial 219 00:11:20,880 --> 00:11:25,480 Speaker 4: judge didn't focus on relevant factors in the sentence in consideration, 220 00:11:26,040 --> 00:11:28,760 Speaker 4: or that perhaps the judge put too much emphasis on 221 00:11:28,760 --> 00:11:31,719 Speaker 4: one factor or not the other. So, for example, for 222 00:11:31,840 --> 00:11:36,400 Speaker 4: the prosecutions perspective, one significant factor. 223 00:11:36,120 --> 00:11:37,560 Speaker 3: Is that there's no remorse. 224 00:11:37,840 --> 00:11:41,000 Speaker 4: When somebody runs a trial, it can't then be said 225 00:11:41,040 --> 00:11:44,000 Speaker 4: that they are remorseful for what happened, and that's something 226 00:11:44,000 --> 00:11:46,440 Speaker 4: that's taken into account when somebody pleads guilty and they're 227 00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:49,320 Speaker 4: actually given a reduction on sentence. So a big factor 228 00:11:49,320 --> 00:11:52,079 Speaker 4: for them is that there's no remorse. The second one 229 00:11:52,120 --> 00:11:55,920 Speaker 4: would be probably that what's aggravating in terms of the crime. 230 00:11:55,960 --> 00:11:58,640 Speaker 4: The features of the crime is that she planned it. 231 00:11:58,640 --> 00:12:01,520 Speaker 4: It was all pre planned and again she lied. So 232 00:12:01,640 --> 00:12:04,640 Speaker 4: if the trial judge hasn't put enough emphasis on the 233 00:12:04,679 --> 00:12:07,319 Speaker 4: lack of remorse or hasn't. 234 00:12:07,200 --> 00:12:09,959 Speaker 3: Again put enough weight on the fact that she lied. 235 00:12:10,000 --> 00:12:12,520 Speaker 4: For example, they might say that the sentence is too 236 00:12:12,640 --> 00:12:14,360 Speaker 4: lenient and that the judge needs to. 237 00:12:14,280 --> 00:12:15,440 Speaker 3: Revisit those factors. 238 00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:18,280 Speaker 4: Or it could be that the trial judge placed too 239 00:12:18,360 --> 00:12:22,280 Speaker 4: much weight on Miss Patterson's personal circumstances. So I know 240 00:12:23,080 --> 00:12:25,440 Speaker 4: that the judge really took into account the fact that 241 00:12:25,800 --> 00:12:28,719 Speaker 4: this is high profile in the media, and she was 242 00:12:28,760 --> 00:12:31,960 Speaker 4: suffering in custody more so than other prisoners because of 243 00:12:32,000 --> 00:12:34,720 Speaker 4: all the attention she was getting. Then she was essentially 244 00:12:34,760 --> 00:12:37,120 Speaker 4: put into isolation, and I can tell you the conditions 245 00:12:37,160 --> 00:12:41,319 Speaker 4: are just shocking when you're in isolation. So the judge 246 00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:44,319 Speaker 4: is taken into account that burden on her and that's 247 00:12:44,360 --> 00:12:46,640 Speaker 4: suffering in custody, the fact that she'd be suffering more 248 00:12:46,679 --> 00:12:49,600 Speaker 4: than others. The judge also took into account her age, 249 00:12:49,640 --> 00:12:50,600 Speaker 4: so essentially she'll. 250 00:12:50,480 --> 00:12:52,160 Speaker 3: Be an elderly woman when she is. 251 00:12:52,160 --> 00:12:55,079 Speaker 4: Eligible to be released, and the fact she had no 252 00:12:55,480 --> 00:13:00,920 Speaker 4: prior history. So all of those factors. The prosecute might say, well, 253 00:13:01,160 --> 00:13:03,880 Speaker 4: the judge just put too much weight on factors in 254 00:13:03,920 --> 00:13:08,480 Speaker 4: her favor and needs to I guess shift things in 255 00:13:08,559 --> 00:13:10,959 Speaker 4: terms of the balance in exercise, and you know, weighing 256 00:13:11,080 --> 00:13:12,240 Speaker 4: up what's appropriate. 257 00:13:12,880 --> 00:13:15,840 Speaker 1: So with two appeals at plate, will they be happening 258 00:13:15,880 --> 00:13:17,880 Speaker 1: at the same time or what does that look like? 259 00:13:19,080 --> 00:13:23,640 Speaker 4: They probably will from a court resource financial perspective, they'll 260 00:13:23,640 --> 00:13:26,520 Speaker 4: probably want to run them together. So what will happen 261 00:13:26,679 --> 00:13:30,800 Speaker 4: is defense will submit their grounds on the conviction. The 262 00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:35,000 Speaker 4: prosecution will submit grounds on the sentence being lenient. But 263 00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:37,760 Speaker 4: then we'll also respond to the conviction argument and say 264 00:13:37,760 --> 00:13:41,000 Speaker 4: that the conviction stands, it was the right decision, there 265 00:13:41,040 --> 00:13:44,120 Speaker 4: was nothing wrong with the process or the verdict. Defense 266 00:13:44,120 --> 00:13:48,680 Speaker 4: will respond to the sentence and say the sentence is fair, 267 00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:52,920 Speaker 4: it wasn't lenient, and they'll also argue why the sentence 268 00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:55,920 Speaker 4: shouldn't be increased. So the prosecution will be argument should 269 00:13:55,920 --> 00:13:58,679 Speaker 4: be increase, Defense will be arguing that it should remain 270 00:13:58,720 --> 00:14:01,240 Speaker 4: the same. I really doubt defense will be arguing that 271 00:14:01,240 --> 00:14:03,839 Speaker 4: it should be decreased. I don't see any merit in that, 272 00:14:03,880 --> 00:14:05,800 Speaker 4: and I really doubt they'll do that. So it does 273 00:14:05,880 --> 00:14:08,160 Speaker 4: kind of run together because the court has to entertain 274 00:14:08,520 --> 00:14:12,439 Speaker 4: the responses as well as the original submissions. They'll also 275 00:14:12,520 --> 00:14:15,520 Speaker 4: make submissions probably on whether there needs to be retrial, 276 00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,400 Speaker 4: whether conviction's quashed. So there might be some grounds around 277 00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:20,800 Speaker 4: that as well, in terms of the delay already and 278 00:14:20,920 --> 00:14:23,520 Speaker 4: having this case hanging over Ms. Patterson's said, and not 279 00:14:23,600 --> 00:14:26,480 Speaker 4: just her head, but the victim's families, that the witnesses 280 00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:30,600 Speaker 4: that have to recount all the tragic circumstances. It might 281 00:14:30,640 --> 00:14:33,800 Speaker 4: be that the court spares them of that process potentially. 282 00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:38,280 Speaker 1: So you touched upon Aaron's conditions in prison, Can you 283 00:14:38,440 --> 00:14:41,560 Speaker 1: talk our listeners through what it is like at Dane 284 00:14:41,560 --> 00:14:43,680 Speaker 1: Phillis Frost. 285 00:14:43,880 --> 00:14:47,200 Speaker 4: So Dane Phyllis, it's obviously in all female prison, you 286 00:14:47,360 --> 00:14:50,920 Speaker 4: have whole range of prisoners in there in terms of 287 00:14:50,960 --> 00:14:53,920 Speaker 4: security reso. You've got women in there that are on 288 00:14:54,120 --> 00:14:58,760 Speaker 4: remand's awaiting trial. That means they haven't been proven guilty 289 00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:00,560 Speaker 4: of a crime yet, and in fact, there would be 290 00:15:00,600 --> 00:15:03,520 Speaker 4: many women in there that are actually innocent. Then you've 291 00:15:03,560 --> 00:15:06,600 Speaker 4: got women in there that have been convicted or pleaded 292 00:15:06,600 --> 00:15:09,240 Speaker 4: guilty of a crime, but they're considered low risks. 293 00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:10,560 Speaker 3: So for example, it might be that. 294 00:15:10,680 --> 00:15:14,400 Speaker 4: They've committed theft, but it didn't involve any violence or 295 00:15:14,440 --> 00:15:16,480 Speaker 4: any harm to anyone, so to speak, like it's a 296 00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:20,120 Speaker 4: financial harm, but there's no safety risk to someone mentally 297 00:15:20,160 --> 00:15:22,440 Speaker 4: or physically, and then you've got other prisons in there 298 00:15:22,440 --> 00:15:26,160 Speaker 4: that are high risks. So for example, they have been 299 00:15:26,200 --> 00:15:30,360 Speaker 4: convicted of a murder, they're considered extremely violent, or they're 300 00:15:30,360 --> 00:15:35,120 Speaker 4: emotional or cognitive or intellectual or mental health condition means 301 00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:35,840 Speaker 4: that they might be. 302 00:15:35,800 --> 00:15:38,600 Speaker 3: A psychological risk to others or even to themselves. 303 00:15:38,920 --> 00:15:42,120 Speaker 4: So some women are prone to self harming in there, 304 00:15:42,440 --> 00:15:46,280 Speaker 4: or harming others. So you've got this whole melting pot. 305 00:15:46,320 --> 00:15:50,200 Speaker 4: Whereas with the male prisons, there's a lot of different units, 306 00:15:50,240 --> 00:15:54,360 Speaker 4: a lot of different facilities that not segregate, but you know, 307 00:15:54,680 --> 00:15:57,880 Speaker 4: there's one facility that's for low risk offenders, and then 308 00:15:57,880 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 4: there's another facility just for people in remind that are 309 00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:03,640 Speaker 4: still innocent, and then there's another facility for high risk offenders. 310 00:16:03,800 --> 00:16:06,680 Speaker 4: So dan Phyllis, everyone's together. It's one being melting pot. 311 00:16:07,120 --> 00:16:08,960 Speaker 4: I can tell you that a lot of my female 312 00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:12,000 Speaker 4: clients have said that they have felt very threatened in 313 00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:16,040 Speaker 4: They're very unsafe and very vulnerable. You know, they really 314 00:16:16,080 --> 00:16:20,240 Speaker 4: are fending for themselves, trying to play the game so 315 00:16:20,280 --> 00:16:23,240 Speaker 4: they don't become bait, so to speak. You know that 316 00:16:23,280 --> 00:16:26,040 Speaker 4: there's the big dogs in custody and you've got to 317 00:16:26,080 --> 00:16:30,359 Speaker 4: appease them just to protect yourself. But look, there's some positives. 318 00:16:30,640 --> 00:16:33,640 Speaker 4: There's a lot of forensic case workers and psychologists in 319 00:16:33,680 --> 00:16:37,360 Speaker 4: the jails that really genuinely care about the prisoners, and 320 00:16:37,480 --> 00:16:39,880 Speaker 4: I know they work really hard to give them some 321 00:16:39,920 --> 00:16:43,480 Speaker 4: sort of therapeutic treatment and support. They've got some programs 322 00:16:43,480 --> 00:16:46,840 Speaker 4: in custody, like educational programs, they can actually do tape courses, 323 00:16:47,360 --> 00:16:49,440 Speaker 4: they can work in the kitchen and earn a bit 324 00:16:49,480 --> 00:16:51,200 Speaker 4: of an income, and I know some of my clients 325 00:16:51,200 --> 00:16:54,240 Speaker 4: that work in the bakery section really enjoyed. It keeps 326 00:16:54,280 --> 00:16:58,880 Speaker 4: them busy and productive. But overall it's a frightening experience. 327 00:16:58,960 --> 00:17:01,960 Speaker 4: And even one day in jail is enough to break someone. 328 00:17:02,080 --> 00:17:05,520 Speaker 4: So thirty three years, I could tell you right now, 329 00:17:05,560 --> 00:17:09,960 Speaker 4: her quality of life has already deteriorated, and I can't 330 00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:12,800 Speaker 4: imagine what a quality of life will be like on release. 331 00:17:12,880 --> 00:17:17,119 Speaker 4: So for those angry about the fact that she is 332 00:17:17,240 --> 00:17:20,520 Speaker 4: eligible for prole then I think it is a life sentence. 333 00:17:20,520 --> 00:17:23,679 Speaker 2: Nonetheless, Well, thank you so much for answering all of 334 00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:26,320 Speaker 2: our questions. I just wanted to ask you, are there 335 00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:28,280 Speaker 2: any other thoughts you had about this case that you 336 00:17:28,320 --> 00:17:28,960 Speaker 2: wanted to share. 337 00:17:29,400 --> 00:17:33,280 Speaker 4: I think just in terms of the attention it's had 338 00:17:33,359 --> 00:17:35,359 Speaker 4: by the community and the media. I mean, I think 339 00:17:35,560 --> 00:17:39,400 Speaker 4: everyone loves who'd done it, and everyone loves a mystery, 340 00:17:39,440 --> 00:17:41,440 Speaker 4: and I know in this case it's not necessarily who'd 341 00:17:41,440 --> 00:17:45,880 Speaker 4: done it, but it did trigger people's minds around what 342 00:17:45,920 --> 00:17:48,560 Speaker 4: on earth was she thinking? Or did she actually do it? 343 00:17:48,600 --> 00:17:51,360 Speaker 4: Did she mean to do it? So I think it's 344 00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:54,000 Speaker 4: a great thing that now the community gets more exposure 345 00:17:54,200 --> 00:17:56,880 Speaker 4: to the court system and how cases operate and what 346 00:17:57,000 --> 00:18:00,760 Speaker 4: sort of how defense and prosecution all so run their case. 347 00:18:00,840 --> 00:18:03,840 Speaker 4: I think from an educational point of view, I'm glad 348 00:18:03,840 --> 00:18:05,600 Speaker 4: to see that it's out there in the media. But 349 00:18:05,680 --> 00:18:09,280 Speaker 4: I just also want to remind people that again we're 350 00:18:09,280 --> 00:18:12,400 Speaker 4: dealing with people and where they spoke this fire. Not 351 00:18:12,440 --> 00:18:15,040 Speaker 4: necessarily in criminal law, someone has to be proven beyond 352 00:18:15,080 --> 00:18:18,760 Speaker 4: reasonable doubt that they have committed a crime. And whilst 353 00:18:18,760 --> 00:18:22,120 Speaker 4: the jury found miss Patterson guilty here, there were holes 354 00:18:22,119 --> 00:18:22,680 Speaker 4: in the case. 355 00:18:23,040 --> 00:18:24,080 Speaker 3: There were weaknesses. 356 00:18:24,600 --> 00:18:26,720 Speaker 4: We didn't have a motive, which usually these sort of 357 00:18:26,720 --> 00:18:29,760 Speaker 4: matters that there is one, and some things just didn't 358 00:18:29,800 --> 00:18:30,360 Speaker 4: stuck up. 359 00:18:30,520 --> 00:18:30,760 Speaker 2: You know. 360 00:18:30,920 --> 00:18:33,520 Speaker 4: Again, there was no sort of financial incentive for her 361 00:18:33,520 --> 00:18:35,520 Speaker 4: to do this, or there was no hatred. 362 00:18:35,880 --> 00:18:38,040 Speaker 3: So I think when people. 363 00:18:37,760 --> 00:18:41,720 Speaker 4: Start getting a little bit upset around outcomes, do visit 364 00:18:41,800 --> 00:18:44,200 Speaker 4: court cases a bit more. Do follow some of these 365 00:18:44,200 --> 00:18:47,240 Speaker 4: more live recordings, because it gives you a better insight 366 00:18:47,280 --> 00:18:50,320 Speaker 4: into how the justice system works, whilse defense. 367 00:18:50,080 --> 00:18:51,040 Speaker 3: Lawyers do what we do. 368 00:18:51,640 --> 00:18:56,160 Speaker 4: And just reminding again that people are innocent before proven guilty. 369 00:18:56,240 --> 00:19:01,040 Speaker 4: It's not the other way around. And sometimes people aren't 370 00:19:01,080 --> 00:19:03,400 Speaker 4: guilty of what's being alleged. And I think it's really 371 00:19:03,400 --> 00:19:07,160 Speaker 4: important to just show some compassion and empathy for how 372 00:19:07,200 --> 00:19:09,720 Speaker 4: scary an experience it is for someone on trial that 373 00:19:10,400 --> 00:19:11,560 Speaker 4: hasn't committed a crime. 374 00:19:11,880 --> 00:19:12,960 Speaker 2: Thank you so much, Lauren. 375 00:19:13,800 --> 00:19:15,800 Speaker 3: Oh, thank you so much for having me. It's been great. 376 00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:20,320 Speaker 1: Before we go, there's one other little update in Aaron's case. 377 00:19:21,440 --> 00:19:24,359 Speaker 2: There is you and I Brook. We wrote a story 378 00:19:24,400 --> 00:19:28,160 Speaker 2: the other week about Aaron's car, that notorious red MG, 379 00:19:28,440 --> 00:19:33,200 Speaker 2: being up for sale. We found the advertisement on Facebook 380 00:19:33,280 --> 00:19:37,359 Speaker 2: marketplace and we ran our checks and balances and we 381 00:19:37,400 --> 00:19:39,280 Speaker 2: figured out that it is Eron's car. 382 00:19:39,760 --> 00:19:42,280 Speaker 1: Yes, because the description actually didn't say that it was. 383 00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:44,639 Speaker 2: No, there was no mention at all of Erin in 384 00:19:44,680 --> 00:19:47,879 Speaker 2: that advertisement. It was put up by her power of 385 00:19:47,920 --> 00:19:52,080 Speaker 2: attorney Ali Pryor, who we have previously discussed on the podcast, 386 00:19:52,640 --> 00:19:56,040 Speaker 2: and it was listed for eighteen and a half thousand dollars. 387 00:19:56,520 --> 00:19:59,000 Speaker 2: And I'll read from the ad now price to sell 388 00:19:59,080 --> 00:20:03,760 Speaker 2: quickly telling my mg ZST Corps twenty twenty three model 389 00:20:04,160 --> 00:20:07,359 Speaker 2: with just twenty two thousand kilometers on the clock. Car 390 00:20:07,440 --> 00:20:11,440 Speaker 2: is an excellent condition, drives beautifully, super economical and still 391 00:20:11,440 --> 00:20:16,880 Speaker 2: feels like new, perfect little suv, stylish, reliable and cheap 392 00:20:16,920 --> 00:20:20,040 Speaker 2: to run. Only selling because of an upgrade. 393 00:20:20,359 --> 00:20:22,680 Speaker 1: And as soon as you and I started making inquiries 394 00:20:22,680 --> 00:20:26,000 Speaker 1: about it, the ad got taken down very quickly. 395 00:20:26,160 --> 00:20:28,639 Speaker 2: May I add, And you spoke to Miss Prior, didn't you? 396 00:20:28,800 --> 00:20:31,359 Speaker 1: Yes, I did so. I had about a ten minute 397 00:20:31,359 --> 00:20:35,240 Speaker 1: conversation with Miss Pryor on the phone and she said 398 00:20:35,359 --> 00:20:39,080 Speaker 1: that Erin murdering three people and this is quote had 399 00:20:39,119 --> 00:20:42,280 Speaker 1: nothing to do with me selling her car. This is 400 00:20:42,320 --> 00:20:45,000 Speaker 1: another quote. She said, I have power of attorney to 401 00:20:45,080 --> 00:20:47,760 Speaker 1: sell her car if that's what I'm instructed to do. 402 00:20:48,280 --> 00:20:50,359 Speaker 1: It's a private ad selling a car. 403 00:20:50,600 --> 00:20:52,879 Speaker 2: So just to remind our listeners, this was the car 404 00:20:53,080 --> 00:20:56,719 Speaker 2: that Erin famously spoke at the front of in the 405 00:20:56,720 --> 00:21:00,720 Speaker 2: week after the deadly lunch Brook. You were there recording 406 00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:02,399 Speaker 2: Erin as she was speaking to the media. 407 00:21:02,840 --> 00:21:05,680 Speaker 1: Yes, I think everyone will remember that footage of her 408 00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:08,520 Speaker 1: crying crocodile tears in the front of her car. 409 00:21:09,359 --> 00:21:11,640 Speaker 2: And it was also the same car that Aaron used 410 00:21:11,680 --> 00:21:14,280 Speaker 2: to go to the Kunwora tip on not one but 411 00:21:14,440 --> 00:21:18,320 Speaker 2: two occasions, the second time dumping the dehydrator. And we've 412 00:21:18,320 --> 00:21:21,960 Speaker 2: mentioned this before, but currently Aaron's house is restrained, which 413 00:21:22,040 --> 00:21:25,160 Speaker 2: means she can't sell it, but the car is not restrained, 414 00:21:25,240 --> 00:21:27,680 Speaker 2: so it remains one of her only other assets that's 415 00:21:27,680 --> 00:21:29,879 Speaker 2: worth selling to make a little bit of cash. 416 00:21:30,280 --> 00:21:33,720 Speaker 1: So the appeals process is definitely happening on both sides, 417 00:21:33,840 --> 00:21:36,679 Speaker 1: so we're guaranteed to see more updates in this case. 418 00:21:36,960 --> 00:21:40,080 Speaker 1: To stay updated, go to Heraldsign dot com dot au 419 00:21:40,240 --> 00:21:41,919 Speaker 1: or watch out for future episodes.