The ‘mushroom lunch’ killings have become one of the most closely watched criminal matters in recent years. In July 2025, Erin Patterson was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder after serving a beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms at a 2023 family lunch in Leongatha.
According to media reports, at the plea/sentencing hearing, prosecutors argued for life imprisonment without parole, while the defence accepted life but pressed for a non-parole period (NPP) rather than a ‘never to be released’ order. Sentencing was determined on 8 September 2025.
Why this case is legally distinctive
- Method and setting (poisoning in a domestic context): Murder by deliberate poisoning is relatively rare and often treated by courts as reflecting planning and cruelty, aggravating features when weighing sentence. The case also involved hospitality and family trust (lunch at the offender’s home), heightening breach-of-trust concerns.
- Multiple victims and survivor: Three fatalities and one survivor (who delivered a powerful victim impact statement) significantly elevate denunciation, general deterrence and community protection in the sentencing calculus. The Victorian Sentencing Council notes that multiple murders in a single incident is a powerful aggravating factor influencing both whether an NPP is set and how long it is.
- Positions of the parties: Unusually, both sides agreed on a life sentence, the live issue prior to sentencing being whether the court should set no parole at all or a very long NPP.
How sentencing works in Victoria (in brief)
Under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), the court sentences to meet purposes including punishment, denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation and community protection.
For murder, the maximum is life imprisonment. The judge may fix a non-parole period (or decline to do so, resulting in life without parole) having regard to all circumstances and the totality of offending.
In multiple-victim cases, Victorian courts commonly set very long NPPs. In the ‘worst category’ cases, courts can decline to set any NPP at all.
What sentence was likely?
Given the multiple murders, poisoning, domestic breach of trust and the court’s own language about the scale of harm (a ‘tsunami’ of grief), a life sentence was effectively certain. The key question prior to sentencing was whether Erin Patterson would be allowed parole. The options appeared to be:
- Life without parole (prosecution position) or
- Life with a very long NPP eg decades (defence position, reportedly canvassed around 30 years).
Judicial remarks at the plea hearing suggested the court viewed the offending as extremely serious which placed life without parole firmly on the table. However, Justice Beale ultimately determined Patterson would serve a non-parole period of 33 years.
How rare is ‘no parole’ for women in Australia?
‘No parole’ for women in Australia is extremely rare. Precedents include:
- Katherine Knight (NSW, 2001): First Australian woman sentenced to life without parole (“never to be released”) for the murder of John Price.
- Catherine Birnie (WA, 1987): Sentenced to life. While technically subject to review, parole has been repeatedly ruled out or deferred by Attorneys-General and under statutory settings, creating an effective no-parole outcome.
These precedents underscore just how exceptional a no-parole order for a female offender is in Australia. If the court had imposed a no-parole period in Patterson’s case, it would have sat alongside Knight as one of the harshest sentences ever handed to a woman in Australia.
Practical takeaways
- A landmark sentence: Even without a non-parole period, a 33 year NPP reflects the court’s focus on denunciation, deterrence and protection in multi-victim poisonings.
- The court’s treatment of mitigation: Defence submissions touched on mental health and prison conditions. The judge’s expressed scepticism indicated limited mitigation weight against the gravity and planning found by the jury.
- Media and community impact doesn’t sentence the case - principles do: There was a careful application of Victorian sentencing principles to a fact pattern that courts typically regard as among the most serious.
With the final outcome determined on 8 September 2025, this matter has now become a case study in how Victorian courts approach multi-victim, premeditated poisoning murders.
