UPDATE: Convicted triple-murderer Erin Patterson is actively seeking to appeal her life sentence, as her legal team gains momentum with the addition of renowned attorney Julian McMahon. This urgent development raises significant questions about the severity of her sentence and the implications of capital punishment history in Victoria.
Just announced, McMahon’s involvement underscores a critical connection between Patterson’s case and the historical context of the death penalty in the state. If Patterson had been convicted prior to 1975, when the death penalty was abolished in Victoria, she could have faced execution, a reality that McMahon knows all too well from his experience defending Australians in countries that still impose capital punishment.
The case is charged with emotion and legal complexity. Patterson was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 33 years for what Justice Christopher Beale deemed “the worst category of offences.” This sentence starkly contrasts with the average murder sentence in Victoria, which currently stands at just under 22 years, with a non-parole period of 16 years.
The appeal will challenge both the conviction and the harshness of the sentence. In a notable precedent, McMahon previously represented Akon Guode, who was convicted of multiple murders and saw her sentence reduced on appeal. This sets a potential framework for Patterson’s legal strategy.
Victim impact statements played a crucial role in the sentencing, with Justice Beale considering 19 out of 29 statements submitted. The emotional weight of these testimonies highlights the profound human impact of Patterson’s crimes, making her case anything but average.
Amid this legal battle, the conditions of Patterson’s imprisonment have come under scrutiny. Justice Beale acknowledged the “harsher than usual conditions” she faced, including 15 months of solitary confinement prior to her conviction. This aspect is now pivotal for both the defence and prosecution’s arguments regarding the adequacy of her sentence.
The prosecution argues that the sentence is “manifestly inadequate,” while the defence may counter with claims that the conditions of her confinement amount to “torture” under the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules, potentially opening the door for a cross-appeal.
As the case unfolds, the public will be watching closely to see how the legal proceedings develop. Patterson’s situation remains a stark reminder that abolishing the death penalty did not eliminate the discussion around cruel and inhumane punishment.
Stay tuned for more updates as this story develops.
